All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
21:40
This Week in Stupid (11⧸09⧸2016)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 11th of September 2016.
This week, an essay titled Why I'll Never Date a Feminist is rustling a lot of Jimmies.
A writer is in hot water for declaring that he'll never date a feminist, and then gives some ridiculous reasons why.
Obviously this is being written by a feminist.
Apparently this article has already hit a major salt vein and we are on the first sentence.
Dave Hon, a columnist for Josephine magazine, recently wrote the baffling essay.
If you look for a reason to hate men, chances are you're going to find it.
Hon began in his column citing a common and incorrect assumption that all feminists hate men.
Did anyone say all feminists or is that something you've said?
Did we need a hashtag not all in there?
Hashtag not all feminists?
I mean just some feminists hate men.
Just, I mean, what would you say was about quarter, maybe a fifth, of all feminists.
So what a few million man haters are in the feminist movement, writing articles about how much they hate men and for some reason, the rest of the feminist movement just goes along without correcting them.
Do you not think that maybe it might be in your own best interest to call out the virulent man haters in your own movement, rather than providing them the shelter and protection?
I love this next bit, and that feminism is about something other than equality.
Feminism is about something other than equality.
It's about women's advocacy, because if feminism was about equality, there would be a big feminist campaign right now to address the fact that 60 plus percent of university students are female.
This is not equality, this is a supremacist movement by literally any kind of observable metric.
He then outlined what he believes are the ridiculous untruths peddled by feminists.
Oh yeah, because fa Fa Jesus yeah, those ridiculous untruths uh, from rape culture to the wage gap, to the overall existence of, you know, male privilege.
You know that touches basically every aspect of life, such as economics, social psychology, politics and fashion.
So, as far as feminism is concerned, are we supposed to think that women are the untamensch to the men's ubermensch, because that's how it sounds.
It really sounds like they're describing women as some kind of inferior species of human that has been treated like slave labor since the beginning of time, which is an assessment I don't agree with and i'm sure they're not actually trying to put across.
But goddamn, it's really hard not to think.
You think women are inferior.
But no, insists hon. These systemic historical factors that result in a world that is inherently intrinsically shaped by the gendering of self and others isn't real, but rather just the smack talk of angry women who have had a previous bad experience when it comes to men.
Huh?
Let's be honest, there are a lot of feminists who have had bad experiences with men.
They're not shy about saying it.
Whether it's them saying, I'm a victim of rape, I'm a victim of harassment or street harassment, cat calling, any of these things, they all, all claim to be victims in some way.
It doesn't even have to be something overt like street harassment or rape or anything like that.
It can literally be I'm a victim of the patriarchy because I'm expected to wear pink or I'm expected to wear makeup.
I'm expected to do this, that and the other.
In some way, feminists all claim to be the victim of something and it all boils down fundamentally to men.
So don't sit there playing fucking, oh, I just don't know what you mean.
What are you talking about?
We're not all victims.
Yes, you are.
That's your fucking primary goal, is to convince the world that you're all victims and that something needs to be done about you being victims.
And we'll get to exactly how big a bunch of victims feminists are and are campaigning for all women to be considered.
But for now, we will finish going through your intellectual abortion.
Well, let's take a look at some of the facts.
Well, I suppose it's the first time for everything.
Hond disagrees that rape culture exists.
This is an amazing bit.
Listen to this.
And yet the National Sexual Violence Resource Center reports that one in five women will be raped at some point in her life, and one in ten has been raped by an intimate partner.
Unfortunately, rape culture has actually got nothing to do with real rape.
I know that sounds crazy, and I know that you're what the- Why the fuck would they call it rape cult?
I know.
I totally agree.
Why would they call it rape culture?
Because they're fucking moronic.
That's why.
And this person doesn't really understand feminism.
They don't really understand the terms they're using.
Rape culture is to do with the attitudes and cultural norms surrounding women's sexuality.
It is not about rape.
I know it sounds stupid, I know it sounds counterintuitive, but seriously, trust me on this.
They will tell you that it's about attitudes that normalize rape in our culture.
And then, if you say, yeah, but rape isn't normalized, it's reviled.
They'll be like, yeah, but I'm not actually talking about rape.
Then, of course, we have the wage gap, which is not only very real for women, especially women of colour, but as the Center for American Progress reports, women also face long-term setbacks to their lifetime earnings as a result of taking time off work to care for their children.
A position that is increasingly an economic necessity for many households, given the rising costs of childcare, and you guessed it, the lower wages already incurred by women.
So this woman is suggesting that women need feminism to protect them from the consequences of reality.
And then bafflingly, she goes on to justify a position that feminists should be against.
Why women get custody of their children more often than men.
As if this is some sort of feminist goal.
It's not the opposite is the feminist goal.
The feminist goal is to have parity.
It's an equality movement.
So you want less women having custody of their children and more men having custody of their children to get to, ideally, I would imagine, 50-50.
But instead, she spends literally this whole paragraph justifying why it is this way.
So, okay, that's fine.
I thought the feminist idea was to change why it's this way.
We are reaching the peak of this amusing article.
Feminism, to paraphrase from a wide cross-section of the pop culture lexicon, isn't about hating men, but rather about identifying that systemic injustice exists for women, for people of colour, for gender non-conforming individuals, for anyone who is marginalized in any way by being labelled as the other by the dominant cultural voice that continues to be that of white men.
Really, does it?
The dominant cultural voices of white men.
Let's just assume that's true.
What actual injustices have you identified here?
The answer is, of course, zero.
You've identified annoyances.
You've identified the consequences of making certain decisions in your life.
Basically, you were complaining that you were entitled to have it all, and you're complaining that you can't have it all.
And the thing is, we know that feminism does want it all.
Feminists want it all, because this is the author of the article.
I don't want to be mean to him, but he's not going to win any prizes for his looks.
Which makes it all the more perplexing that the end of this article is just feminists acting like rejected girlfriends, being bitchy and catty and going, well, look, I didn't want to date him anyway.
Well, I mean, I'm sure that's true, but why then are you acting like this?
A few years ago, I did a video about Elliot Roger, the, I think it was Santa Barbara mass shooter, who basically went on this rampage because he couldn't find a woman, apparently.
And so I had done this video going, look, he's a product of a system that is increasingly feminist in aspect.
And I had said this in maybe not such an eloquent way, but the Manginosphere really, really took this and ran.
They love this.
Basically saying something along the lines of, oh my god, Sargon says we live in a feminist system, he's so very wrong.
The thing I find most amusing about this is I become less wrong by the day on this one.
As, for example, this week, misogyny could be treated as a hate crime by police across the UK.
Is this not the product of feminism on the system?
Is this not feminism molding the system into its own image?
So this was initially trialled by Nottinghamshire Police, and I have the same criticisms of it now that I did then, because they haven't changed.
Misogyny could be treated as a hate crime by police forces across England and Wales as a bid to tackle sexist abuse.
The move comes after Nottinghamshire Police reportedly launched 20 investigations in the first two months of its pioneering scheme to tackle misogyny.
Just looks like they're looking for problems, doesn't it?
The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for women's rights, praised the development but called for policy to be entered into the law.
Treating abuse targeting women as a hate crime would bring it in line with attacks motivated by hostility and prejudice towards race, religion and sexuality.
That's true, it would.
Police in Devon and Cornwall are among those interested in the reclassification, as are those in Durham and Lincolnshire, according to The Observer, which reported that specially trained officers investigated misogyny every three days in July and August.
Amazing, the witch hunters are finding witches everywhere.
A representative from the Fawcett Society said, we need to call out misogyny for what it is.
A hate crime.
Women and girls face a tidal wave of abuse and harassment every day.
Our law has to send a clear signal that this is not acceptable.
It is a crime.
Well, depends what's actually happening.
You call things abuse and harassment, you call everything abuse and harassment.
You call tweets abuse and harassment.
So I just don't trust your definitions of these words.
Recording the abuse of women as a hate crime will allow charities and policymakers to analyze the scale of incidents.
It's also going to give them faulty data.
You don't know whether any of this is done through misogyny.
If again, I don't even think that's a useful term.
I don't even think that's a term that tells you anything about the situation.
You can't just chalk things up to, well, he hates women.
That's why he did it.
He raped her because he hates women.
He stabbed this woman because he rapes men.
He wolf-whistled at this woman because he hates women.
He stole money from this woman's bank account because he hates women.
See what I mean?
It doesn't mean anything.
And then, it also means victims can report incidents that might not be considered a crime and officers will investigate.
Oh, well done, you've criminalized people who weren't committing crimes.
Well done.
That's what we're looking for.
More criminals.
What can we criminalise to increase the number of people who police officers have to investigate?
Officers will then consider how a victim can be supported and how repeat abuse can be prevented.
Now, don't get me wrong, that sounds like a good thing, right?
You want the victim to be supported, and you want to prevent repeat abuse of this nebulous category you've just defined to criminalise a bunch of guys who otherwise wouldn't be considered criminals.
But I really have to ask the powers that be, do you think that is going to incentivize some women to claim misogyny when no misogyny actually occurred?
In fact, when no crime has actually occurred?
Do you think it's going to incentivize women who want to be treated as if they're special, who want attention, who want to be the person who everyone is fawning over, to be the victim?
Do you think it's going to incentivize them?
I think it will.
Seriously, listen to this definition of misogyny, right?
Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.
So a few points that I think are worth making.
One, this means a woman can never be misogynistic.
It can only be men.
Two, this could be applied to any time a man commits a crime against a woman.
And three, it requires Nottingham Police Force to be fucking mind readers.
You don't know what motivates this guy to do whatever, and you don't know whether he did it simply because they're a woman.
And if he did do it simply because they're a woman, why doesn't he do it to every other fucking woman?
Why was it this woman and not any other woman that came before her?
For Christ's sake, this is bullshit.
This is hands down, flat out, ideological horseshit.
The forces Chief Constable Sue Fish said that the move would make the country a safer place when it was announced in July.
What women face, often on a daily basis, is absolutely unacceptable and can be extremely distressing.
Well, don't get me wrong, that is absolutely terrible, but I'm not really worried as to whether women are distressed.
I'm worried as to whether any crimes are being committed.
Is there any chance we can get the police back on that subject?
Just out of interest?
So in other news, Black Lives Matter decided to protest something by blocking an airport runway of the London City Airport over expansion plans there.
Before we go any further, I'm just going to explain very quickly that Black Lives Matter have absolutely no case in the United Kingdom.
The flagship complaint of Black Lives Matter in the United States is the disproportionate killing of black men by police officers.
That simply does not happen in this country.
Since 1990, British police have killed 1,572 people, with exactly 10% of those being non-white.
The non-white population of Britain is 13%.
So in fact, non-white people are being underrepresented by our police force.
Probably because they're afraid of being called racist.
But seriously, I'm going to treat Black Lives Matter as if they are talking shit because they so evidently are.
The data is just simply not in their favour.
So, okay, Black Lives Matter, what have you got for me?
Where are you going to claim that black people are being oppressed by the police?
The UK is the biggest per capita contributor to global temperature change and the least vulnerable.
Interesting how you use a per capita figure here, isn't it?
I mean, I would have thought it might be more useful to use net contribution to the problem.
I mean, what's the comparison between the 65 million people of Britain and the 1.3 billion in China?
According to the UNHCR, by 2050, there will be 200 million climate refugees.
So I should be investing in construction in anticipation of all the walls people are going to build.
7 out of 10 of the countries most affected by climate change are in sub-Saharan Africa.
Which just happens to be where most of the black people are.
Checkmate climate change without a Jewish racist.
Climate crisis is a racist crisis.
A racist crisis.
A crisis that the crisis itself is being racist.
It's prejudiced against black people.
The average salary of a London City airport passenger is £92,000 a year.
In Newham, where London City Airport is located, 40% of the population scrape by on 20k or less.
How is that racist?
Airports, power plants, and the busiest of roads in the West tend to be in the most disadvantaged working class areas.
Okay, I'm sure they do tend to be, but how's that racist?
where a disproportionate number of black and brown communities live.
This is, this is ridiculous.
Oh my goodness.
Black and brown people emigrated to Britain and somehow they didn't emigrate into the upper classes.
Somehow they started in poor areas in the working class.
This is racist!
Environmental racism means that black people in Britain are 28% more likely to be exposed to air pollution than their white counterparts.
I bet the person who wrote that thought that that was meaningful.
I bet they thought that this actually means something.
Being more likely to be exposed to air pollution.
Well look, dude, you can just move somewhere else.
Everyone can just move somewhere else.
And there are probably millions more white people in Britain being exposed to air pollution than black or brown people.
Just the idea that you think this is something that somehow disproportionately affects black people or brown people is absurd to me.
Like it's like it's literally racial discrimination.
Climate crisis is a racist crisis.
Who has put these people up to this?
Who has got them saying just the stupidest things in the world?
Climate crisis is a racist crisis.
That doesn't make fucking sense.
The London City Airport expansion cannot go ahead because it would further decrease the quality of life for poor black people in this country.
It cannot be left unchallenged.
Yeah, I'm not really buying into that thesis.
I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna lie.
At the same time this year alone, more than 3,120 known migrants have died trying to reach safety on European shores, cleaning conditions that they did not create.
So fucking what?
None of the people being protested against created those conditions either.
If they can't fly, then the rich won't either.
I thought the problem was racism.
Climate crisis is a racist crisis.
Shut it down.
Apparently it's also a Jewish crisis.
But anyway, Black Lives Matter UK appears to have moved away from the police because, well, there's not really a lot to point at.
And I think it's very interesting how if you look at the people actually taking part in the protest, one of the things you'll notice is missing are black people.
A fact that wasn't lost on people and so provoked BuzzFeed to write an article about it.
Black Lives Matter UK explains why it uses white protesters.
Isn't that incredible?
Don't you just want to be part of a movement that will actually come into question if you use activists of the wrong skin colour to promote your cause?
Isn't that just something you really want to be a part of?
You know, can I go to this process?
Sorry, Jim.
You're not dark enough.
It just gets better as well because apparently social media was alive with criticism of the group on Tuesday, with many asking whether Black Lives Matter UK movement had been hijacked by white middle class activists who were using the Black Lives Matter name to create awareness about environmental issues.
I love the fact that now this has nothing to do with the police.
The racial purity of the fucking activists is something that's been called into question, and this is by progressive Black Lives Matter activists as well.
Why is it the protests that caused the most setbacks for Black Lives Matter are actually set up by white activists?
That has to be intentional.
It's probably a conspiracy from the white supremacy.
The hilarious thing about this as well is that Black Lives Matter UK hit back saying the group was a black-led network of activists.
But okay, fair enough.
When was the black leader of your Black Lives Matter movement?
Black Lives Matter leader received £50,000 of taxpayers' cash to fund feminist courses.
And she missed last week's anti-air travel demo as she was on a flight to Brazil.
My god, a regressive being a massive fucking hypocrite.
I can hardly believe it.
Seriously, I can hardly believe that spoiled middle-class millennials have managed to find a way to extort the taxpayer to pay for their racist activism against the very things that they themselves use to conduct this activism.
You know what we should do?
When in doubt, consult a black person.
Just like the young Turks.
So here's a black lady who was about to get on one of those planes.
I have to be in Lagos today and I'm still here.
And if I cannot catch my flight from Amsterdam, that means I will still be in Amsterdam today, which is a chaos.
It's not really nice for them to have taken over the airport just like that.
It's inhuman.
They say they're representing Black Lives Matter.
Black what?
Black Lives Matter, they say.
No, they should.
The Guardian decided to consult some different black people about what role white allies should play in the Black Lives Matter UK movement.
This black woman, who has a double-barreled name, says that white allies can only be a positive thing.
Whereas this black man says that black people are strong, independent black women who don't need no white man, in the same way that a fish doesn't need a white bicycle.
So a confusing week for Black Lives Matter UK.
Maybe they can get some inspiration from Black Lives Matter across the pond.
It's time to stop talking about racism with white people.
Black people, it's long past time for us to start practicing self-care.
And if that means completely disengaging with white America altogether, then so be it.
Cal State LA offers segregated housing for black students.
This space would serve as a safe space for black students to congregate, connect and learn from each other.
Georgetown University's reparations plan is worthless white guilt repackaged as justice.
Instead of this program, I want Georgetown to run us our money.
Why do Black Lives Matter appear to be trying to turn back the clock?
You know what we need?
Our own separate drinking fountains.
Maybe our own special seats at the back of the buses.
And if I could just have, I don't know, a white supremacist government give me all the food and clothing and housing that I need, then I Don't have to worry about anything,
▲
Export Selection