All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
11:28
Feminists Will Ban Everything You Love
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women six months ago.
And the more I've spoken about feminism, the more I have realised that fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating.
And my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one?
As part of my continued effort to try and explain to feminists why everyone hates them, we will look at reason number 13.
Feminists will ban everything you love.
And they'll do it in the most ridiculous way possible.
For example, claiming that strip clubs constitute a form of psychological abuse against women.
So feminists naturally want to outlaw strip clubs.
Draft guidelines set by the official Scottish government strategy deem stripping as an act of violence against women and girls, which is pretty incredible because it's my understanding that you're not allowed to touch these women while they're performing.
They classify lap dancing, stripping and pornography as acts of violence, alongside physical and psychological abuse in a relationship, rape, child sex abuse, human trafficking and workplace sexual harassment.
But you might be thinking, well, hang on, I'm not going to be a martyr to strip clubs.
I don't give a damn about these things.
I'm not wasting my money.
And of course you're not.
And I hope you also didn't enjoy Formula One's Grid Girls, professional models who have lost their jobs because feminists think they know best.
This came shortly after Professional Darts banned walk-on girls, who were women who, in their words, made the sport more glamorous.
What does a walk-on girl do?
So basically, we're a professional model.
We escort the darts player down a walk-on onto the stage.
We're actually 9% of advertising.
We wear a sash with the logo of the said sponsor for that tournament.
And it just brings a bit of glit, a bit of glamour to an event that's predominantly male.
And you say, you know, you felt like that community was part of your family because you've been working with them all for such a long time.
Yeah, yeah, we are like, it does sound cliche, but we are a family.
It is, you know, a very tight group and everybody knows everybody and everybody's just lovely.
I think the issue is that people are saying that this is outdated, this is sexist, you know, that you're kind of up there as just this female, just a body to be sort of lingered.
I can't think of a female job that's more safe.
We've got four big security with us constantly.
It's, you know, such a safe environment.
We've been doing it for a long time, 60 years.
And it's a very enjoyable job and we feel very honoured to do the job.
Well, I'm afraid that really doesn't matter because we have a stuffy old feminist who really doesn't want you doing this job.
Let's see what her reason for that would be.
These types of jobs for women, these roles are demeaning.
Yes, I think they're broadly demeaning.
I think what we're seeing is a social change that's happening as you refer to grid girls as well with Formula One.
That's under review.
So what we're seeing is a broader social change that sees these roles as, if not demeaning to the individual, because this is an argument, this is a choice of some of these ladies, it's demeaning broadly to women.
Really, is it demeaning broadly to women to have attractive models walk on stage with sportsmen?
Or is it broadly demeaning to frumpy old feminists who feel insecure about their looks and their fading attractiveness?
Is this any job where a woman uses her image?
So would this count all models in as well?
Where does the key here is it's a sort of decorative role that's making money for men.
And there we have it.
That's the core of the problem.
It's making money for men.
And the really important part there is the for men part.
And so naturally, these women need to be banned from doing their jobs.
Screw their livelihood, screw their freedom of choice.
Feminism has made the decision for them.
Because ultimately, this is about feminists having control.
And there is absolutely no limit to what feminists would control.
If given the option, feminists would ban pornography, The Star of David, a documentary critical of feminism that promotes men's rights, a video game about picking up women, a rapper from going to Australia because he has, quote-unquote, misogynist lyrics, sleeping beauty, because apparently the prince didn't ask for consent.
Father's Day, because Father's Day is for men.
The absurdity of things that feminists want to ban go as far as clapping, because apparently clapping triggers anxiety, so instead we should all use jazz hands.
And don't forget to ban male feminists, which honestly I'm in favour of, because male feminists seems to be a euphemism for rapist.
But I love the way that this article was filed to ban week.
They want to purify the world so that there is no non-feminist content present, because things that aren't feminist are part of the patriarchy.
Honestly, the list goes on and on and on.
If you just put feminist and ban into Google, you will find a massive list.
And I could go through each and every one of them here, but I'm going to focus on a few other things with this particular video.
Because I don't think I need to work very hard to demonstrate to people that feminists love to ban things they hate.
And they want these things banned because these things violate various feminist precepts, almost like a religion.
If something offends feminist sensibilities, they want it banned.
There's no question of it.
They just want it gone.
And of course, this is a one-sided deal.
When feminists are being banned from, say, editing Wikipedia articles about Gamergate, because feminists cannot tell the truth about Gamergate, they're outraged.
How dare you ban us from editing your articles in order to slander and lie about our political opposition?
You can imagine the feminist outrage when Time magazine included the word feminist in a 2014 poll of words to ban that they put to the public.
And this anger was only intensified when it turned out that the word feminist was winning the poll.
And so naturally, it was pulled.
And of course, Time magazine apologised for even including the word feminist on there.
We're so sorry, we can't just go around banning religions.
We don't know what we were thinking.
We are so very sorry.
Because the fact that Time magazine wanted to ban the word feminist proves that we need feminism even more than ever.
However, the feminists do have a list of other words and phrases that you can ban instead.
Because it's not that banning things is wrong, it's that you're not banning the things that we want banned.
For example, why don't you just ban the word bossy?
We hate the word bossy.
Boys are never called bossy, it's only girls who are called bossy.
So we could just ban this word.
Because that wouldn't be bossy at all.
And even if you think it is, you're not going to be allowed to damn well say it.
But don't worry, it's not just non-feminist things that are being banned by feminists.
Because feminism isn't a monolith.
There are in fact many strains of feminism, each one more crazy than the last.
The current feminist sect with the majority of cultural power within the movement is intersectionalism.
It's intersectional feminism that really has the reins of power at the moment.
And it's making its power felt as it goes after the other heretical strains of feminism.
For example, cancelling the vagina monologues, a feminist play that was not feminist enough because it wasn't inclusive to those who identify as a woman but do not have vaginas.
The vagina monologues is considered to be part of the trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement.
And of course, if you're an intersectional feminist, you think trans women are women, whether they have a penis or not.
You can't have the vagina monologues playing at your college.
It's definitely exclusionary to women who have dicks.
And the Turf movement has been really feeling the force of feminism recently, as Twitter's been banning women against trans ideology.
And what they mean by that are feminists who are not intersectional.
And this goes as far as you can even imagine this going.
For example, the Cooperative Bank banning feminists who are trans-exclusionary from using their services because they've barred transgender people from becoming part of their movement.
The question, of course, is where the hell does this stop?
Why should a trans-exclusionary radical feminist even be allowed to rent a house, buy food?
Why should these people not just simply be ostracized from society entirely?
And note, this isn't that these people have actually violated the rights of any trans people.
It's that they have freely chosen to form a group that simply leaves these people out of their purview.
In the same way that a woman-only gym doesn't allow men into it.
And of course, this means that transphobic feminists must be deplatformed everywhere that they go.
They can't possibly be allowed to say what they want to say because these people are heretics.
But one thing that all of these feminists have in common is that they oppose free speech.
Recent free speech rankings survey by Spike said that 94% of UK universities have censored free speech in the past year.
Some have no platform, people like Jermaine Greer, Roger Scruton, and a human rights activist called Miriam Namazi.
Are you happy with that?
I don't believe it's censorship.
I believe that freedom of speech is also freedom to accept the consequences of that speech.
And if that means that certain institutions don't want to promote or give you a platform to say these things, then you have to accept that.
Despite the fact that these institutions actually did want to give them a platform to air their views, and it took feminist activists to prevent that from happening.
This is indeed censorship, because feminism is not a movement that cares about free speech.
Feminism is a movement that actively opposes it.
Really?
Yes, I do.
That's not curtailing freedom of speech.
No, I don't think it is.
People like Jermaine Greer.
But you've just taken away the freedom of these people to speak at the university.
They can speak wherever they like, but freedom of speech is not freedom to be invited wherever you want.
I love the way she's stumbling there.
They can speak wherever they like.
Well, yeah, except at the universities that you get them deplatformed from.
And they were invited there in the first place.
And that's what created your ire.
And you can see how the doublethink is affecting this woman, because she knows that free speech is important in a liberal democracy.
And she's just coming up against the problem that feminists do not like living in a liberal democracy.
They don't like plurality.
They don't like that people can do things that are non-feminist.
What's the point of a university if you don't allow a variety of views to be expressed?
A variety of views, that's absolutely fine.
Clearly not if you're Jermaine Greer.
I think if...
Absolutely demolished.
What this demonstrates is what British MP Stella Creasy said in an interview with Kate Andrews.
Feminism is not about freedom.
Feminism isn't about women, it's about power.
And feminists could not make this more obvious with their activism in daily life.
They do not care about justice.
They do not care about fairness.
They do not care about your rights.
They care about shutting you down and having total control of every environment in which they operate.
▲
Export Selection