I asked my Australopithecan ancestors the same question, and they responded:
"In order to pass my genes forward, is it not advantageous that females of primate mammals have a biological predisposition to bear and nurture their young who have highly developed brains at the expense of early years of vulnerability? Is this not a group adaptation that will one day let my progeny spread throughout the globe and create ultrasocieties far more powerful than any superorganism that could ever threaten it? Will biology not show how division of roles preserves groups?"
An expert in behavioral health (aka mental health) in fact. There’s surely a cheap joke there about needing the intervention of a shrink so bad you had to marry them- but then again those who go into the mental health field are often just as desperately trying to understand their own pathologies as treat them in others- so for what that’s worth- in the end you’ll find plenty of people married to doctors, and it’s surprisingly not as hard a feat as one might imagine.
No, the joke here is the running theme of Shapiro mentioning his wife's a doctor when interviewing people, and it happens so often that people are making fun out it. He finds it funny too.
Ok @guest_ Time for math! (All numbers are rough estimates, via Google and reference the USA, where Shapiro is based) There are 950,000 doctors to be found. We'll split the difference and say 78% are married, making 741,000 spouses. But wait! Based on context we want a non-medical-professional as the spouse, which would be 60% of marriages or 444,600 outside-the-medical-field husbands and wives. 182,250,000 people are married, but the odds of Ben Shapiro being married to a doctor is less than a quarter of a percent, or one in 410. The overall odds of anyone, including doctors, having a doctor spouse is one in 344 or less than a third of a percent. So your 3 times more likely to belong to the wealthy 1% than actually marrying a doctor.
TL;DR Marrying a doctor is really fucking rare!
I have no idea if the original is satire or not, but first, why not both?
And second, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a stay at home parent...
"conservative political commentator"
So... He doesn't believe that the "patriarchy" is a thing, so he's trying to make it sound like "feminists" think mothering children is bad....
There are so many layers of irony with "pundits" these days that makes me happy I don't pay attention anymore
Ben Shapiro is a hack. Theres a great article out there called "The Cool Kids Philosopher" that really documents the myriad ways that he has dragged in his audience. He doesn't debate or discuss; he overwhelms and calls you a moron, never letting you get in a word. It's a tactic my wiring professor used to call "baffling with bullshit."
He's basically one of the most famous conservative pundits online. Has his own show, runs Daily Wire, and is an amazing debater. There are tons of compilations of his debates onlines, "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS X".
.
But yeah, idk if this is satire or not.
He's an amazing bullshiter who is more interested in making somebody look bad than actually discussing a topic based on merit, facts, and an honest want to learn. That's why all those videos are "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS" somebody, instead of "Ben Shapiro has a thoughtful conversation"; it's all about the look with him.
@pripypyatplatypus I'm not saying I always agree with Ben Shaprio and his viewpoints, but your comment leads me to believe you've observed very little of his content. Look for some of his collaborative content with Dave Rubin or Jordan Peterson, you might actually enjoy it. The Daily Wire is also long form and unedited and they always cite where they're reporting data from... so I'm not sure where you're hostility and facts are coming from. If you disagree with him cool that's fine, but you're going way into left-field with your comment.
Rubin and Peterson are almost exactly the same politically as Shapiro. I've watched some of stuff with the same morbid curiosity I had when I read Ayn Rand; I had to figure out why people liked him so much. He's a great storyteller and loves to embarrass people, but when confronted with an actual debater and somebody who is going to call him out, he shuts down and yells. Look at the BBC video from a month or so ago for an example of this.
Dave Rubin is extremely liberal and progressive and Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist most comparable to a Niche of our time.. They're entirely different people. As far as the BBC goes sure I'll give you that one, but you're referring to a single instance and I would suggest you read up on the story behind his reaction--he thought he was being brought on to promote his book not to debate, but I digress... there are hundreds of hours of videos and conferences where he is debating politicians and people who legitimately do debate for a living. Thing is I'm not even a huge fan of Ben Shapiro but you're forcing me to defend him. I would strongly recommend you do some real research and really try to get out if your bubble on this because your information just doesnt line up with the reality on this. The very fact that you consider Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson interchangeable proves everything I just said.Please take the time to do some real reading on these folks.
Yeah "cool kids philosopher" is such a funny moniker, if I didn't know Shapiro fans used it unironically I would've thought it was used to make fun of him. Shapiro just talks fast and spews false data and logical fallacies.
@pripyatplatypus you can also look at his conversation with Andrew Yang. A very far left leaning individual but they have a very good discussion. Also, on the BBC debate. If you notice, the interviewer is doing the exact things you are calling Bed Shapiro our for doing. Now Ben didnt handle it the best I agree, but the interviewer literally asked him questions where the only two options were the opposite of what Ben was saying and then Ben’s POV but labeled in a derogatory way where it makes him look hypocritical. He also brought up stuff Ben has said in the past and has since corrected which can be frustrating for anyone who is in the public when the opposing side is deliberately leaving information out.
Ben Shapiro is intelligent, intelligence comes in many degrees and types, and is never omnipotence- and he often brings up items worth thinking about- perspectives we don’t agree with can still often be worth considering, if nothing else it shows us the way another person views the world based on subjective experience. There in lies the dual rub- firstly that Shapiro often presents his subjective opinions as though they are objective facts (yes- others do this too. We aren’t talking about others though we are talking about this one person,) and very often either as part of his personality or as a technique of spin he postures and is cinematic. People generally don’t tend to turn dry and objective orators who stick to fact into celebrities. Mainstream popularity in the field of debate comes as much from ones ability to entertain as it does from ones ability to debate or even ones views.
The far right has traditionally been represented in pop culture and mainstream media by people who formed the basis of stereotypes for the “crazy” conspiracy driven, uneducated etc. people only a few shades off from a robocop need spoof or a Jeff Foxworthy skit or Dr. Strangelove. Just as the drugged out hippie or communist was once the pop culture face of the far liberals.
In the past, there wasn’t such a huge divide between mainstream liberals and conservatives. People tended to skew closer together and differ in certain points of government. What we would call the far left today was largely people like communists and hippies, and the far right as we know it today was found in places like WW2 Italy or Germany. Things changed. The mass of “leftists” became more focused on things like civil rights and the like, and this popular leftism became the face of leftism in media. Thus those towards the right who opposed things like integration were somewhat rightfully seen in a poor light in this context.
But we have come a long way since then. Those who would once have been considered hard line republicans are now considered moderates or liberals. Those who once would have been considered left leaning are now seen as closer to conservative. To be truly far left or right one has to practically tow a narrow line between extremism and outright terrorism or a desire for ideological warfare in the streets.
So watching the “far left” and “far right” is an absurdist dark comedy. Less an exercise in perspectives and more an exercise in a lack of self awareness- as opposing sides who disagree on certain issues call each other the evil scourge of humanity when their practices and overall goals and methods are almost identical and it’s simply a question of what exactly they want and not any real philosophical difference in attitude which differentiates the two.
In modern America one is considered to be a liberal simply for espousing the very traditional and very fundamentally republican idea that we should as much as practical just let people be so long as they aren’t causing harm to others. It’s easy to get caught up in trappings and tinsel and well rehearsed well polished jingoistic feather fluffing from either side- but that’s the rubric I use to proof the substance. Is what they are saying in essence to advocate a condition in which people are allowed the maximum freedom while applying the maximum accommodation? Are all people benefiting from this and if not who benefits most?
"In order to pass my genes forward, is it not advantageous that females of primate mammals have a biological predisposition to bear and nurture their young who have highly developed brains at the expense of early years of vulnerability? Is this not a group adaptation that will one day let my progeny spread throughout the globe and create ultrasocieties far more powerful than any superorganism that could ever threaten it? Will biology not show how division of roles preserves groups?"
TL;DR Marrying a doctor is really fucking rare!
And second, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a stay at home parent...
So... He doesn't believe that the "patriarchy" is a thing, so he's trying to make it sound like "feminists" think mothering children is bad....
There are so many layers of irony with "pundits" these days that makes me happy I don't pay attention anymore
.
But yeah, idk if this is satire or not.