I watched your conversation with him this morning Julie. It’s disheartening when such basic knowledge about the realities of how women have to navigate our environments is so far from most men’s understanding. Your discussion with him demonstrated that in spades.
I think you did exceptionally well to try and put it in simple terms and to educate him about the different tactics women use to delay/dissipate threat. But it was like you were talking to a brick wall.
And then his response to your final question about what he does to help women with this structural problem was predictable. Nothing really. What was it? He quietly intervened once years ago when he was in the presence of a man bullying a woman… good job, mate. Your silence at his response spoke volumes.
Yes. Boghossian made reference to Julie's interview with "the guy with a lot of books behind him". My guess was that it was Robert Jensen and if it was, it's remarkable that Boghossian could watch an interview with Robert Jensen and for it to make no impact whatsoever on him.
What does it take to penetrate men's oblivion?
Men guard the sovereign impenitrability of their bodies with such vigour. Perhaps this also extends to their minds?
I watched both and also was taken aback by Peter's tone. So far I generally had been enjoying his interviews with people. What seems obvious to me is two things:
- Peter, like other men, fundamentally do not understand what it is like to be under constant threat of violence
- Peter myopically only would accept 'fight back' as the response to a threatening situation which doesn't align with any scientific data we know about psychology or male violence against women.
We already know that under threat, people respond in four basic ways: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Any of the strategies can potentially work to help you survive. It just so happens that women both due to our biology and also due to how we're socialized will mostly respond with flight or fawn. We know that the vast majority of the time, we will not physically win against a man in a fight. We also know that if we try to use a tool, like a gun or pepper spray, it will most likely be turned against us. We also know that the vast majority of male violence against women are perpetrated by close intimate partners, so having a weapon in the home to defend ourselves isn't going to work. What are we going to do, hide it? What women actually do is hide a escape bag with cash and essentials in our homes just in case. What women do is go together in groups to the restroom when we can, which men make fun of but don't realize it's a safety tactic. What women do is talk down (fawn response) threatening men to buy ourselves time to get out. These are all legitimate and work. And none of this occurred to Peter because he's literally has never had to do it probably once in his life.
Also - as regards fight back - women have been told for decades to NOT fight if a man has a weapon. We can't win when either we should not fight, or should fight when we are faced with a violent thug intent on harm.
This is truly stupid and self-defeating. The surface “logic” of this statement belies its profound lack of sense.
The problem/horror of male violence against women is perpetrated by a minority of men. The ONLY hope for ending violence against women and girls is to secure the unconditional support of men who will, when they wake up to it, or are made to wake up to it, act against that minority.
You can’t have it both ways. The whole point of Julie’s… anger? Disappointment?… with men like Peter B is that she is saying that individual women who are victims of male violence cannot physically defend themselves against it., and he can’t see it. Which is what is so maddening. She is saying that society needs to address the issue on a massive scale, because the problem requires a social/cultural shift.
YOU CANT DO THAT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF GOOD MEN.
Saying there is no such thing as a male ally to the feminist cause of ending male violence against women may be the most poisonous thing I have ever heard. Without us, what do you think you will achieve? What is your goal? To vent your spleen on my sex or to protect some women and girls? Choose wisely.
Thanks for proving my point, and thanks for being too stupid to see that you do that, thereby proving my point even further.
After everything, the best point you stupid moids have is IT'S NOT ALL THOUGHHH
You are the problem. You are proof there is no such thing as male allies. This is my goal, and read carefully: TO KEEP STUPID FUCKING MEN LIKE OUT OF GIRLS BATHROOMS, PRISONS, SPORTS, AND SPACES.
That's literally all we're fighting for, and we have to fight for it because males are this stupid in the first place. And look at your behavior. Threatening and acting stupid because you got told no? Thank for proving my point again!
You are the problem. You're the reason this problem exists in the first place. Stop hijacking women's conversations in places like Julie Bindel's substack, and go talk to other men if you're so helpful, beneficial, and one of the "GOOD ONES" in the first place.
Who’s threatening you? Do you have brain damage? You don’t own JB’s Substack threads. You don’t get to tell people what to do in public. Keep men out of women’s spaces, I totally agree. This isn’t one of those spaces. You need to wind your neck in you sound deranged.
You need to get some humility. I am so tired of men being hurt and insulted because women don't always want to hear from you or listen to your wisdom about what we can or should do about the threat of male violence. We don't care what you have to say because we've heard it all a thousand times already.
When he interviewed Sall Grover he commented on her appearance, something like, do you think your being so good looking has something to do with the attention this case is getting? Then when he asked Kara why she opposed pornography, he acted totally flummoxed as to how pornography could be harmful to women. He thinks flirting with Sall and easy access to porn are his rights because he fancies himself a bold, attractive and clever man. When he was traveling the world, while it seemed his wife was back in Portland keeping house, he managed to bring up in several interviews that he felt men had different sex drives than women did, and a natural need for multiple sex partners. He is, in the parlance of my early high school days, a real douche. So glad you spoke about this here Julie. I will listen to your dialogue with the master martial artist. I hope I can bear to listen all the way through (sadly, I had to click off on Kara's).
I am a man who has done martial arts for 10 years, and have frequently been forced to use them to defend myself from other men. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. By all means do martial arts if you can and you want to, but they're not a Get Out of Jail Free card, they are a 'Break Glass in case of Emergency' sign, doubly so for women. A lot of people get a false sense of confidence by training in them. They shouldn't. Peter is clearly one of these people. I do think he has given a platform to people who were being denied one, and that's useful, but he is also prone to some really weird beliefs himself.
Isnt it possible to take self defense classes knowing it will REDUCE vulnerability, but also remembering that it will not completely eliminate risk?
This is called an adult mindset. Reducing vulnerability with a learned skill, while remembering that learning it didn't turn you into an invulnerable God.
Peter is only wondering why women aren't en-masse trying to REDUCE their vulnerability. Some are of course. Why not SCORES tho. So much discussion about the vulnerability of women. We would give it more credit if there was also robust public square discussion about women being encouraged to learn self defense skills.
It is possible, but it took a lot of real-world experience for me to reach that view. And you are giving the bailey version of Peter's view, not the motte. I can assure you that most people who are proficient at martial arts do have an inflated view of their own competence. Mike Tyson once said something like 'everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face'. I agree with him much more than I agree with you.
I knew about 10 guys who I grew up with who were just naturally tough, and tall, and enormous, and some of them trained as well. So maybe around 16 or so. And also I had groups of guys trying to attack me, where I was unlikely to win regardless of the skills of any one of them, and running away was the only option that would work. If someone was roughly the same size as me, and there was one of them, then I could be OK. If not, then it ain't happening.
We are all able to picture a worst case scenario attack with many people vs 1 person. Does it happen, yeah it does.
A huge number of attacks are one to one. And that's where self defense can make a game changing difference.
Maybe there are huge numbers of women taking these classes. But regardless, witnessing how many people were outraged at the suggestion that women could *reduce* their vulnerability....
All of the people upset at the *mere question* 'why don't women reduce their vulnerability by taking self defense classes'... Their very emotional reactions suggest that they are hearing the question as:
'women could shut down *all violence against women everywhere* by taking these classes. Why don't they do this.'
When you read the question like that, it makes sense why so many people would be very upset. And it also suggests that a lot of people 'read' by picking and choosing the words they want, filling the in gaps with their own heart's desire, and then flip out. Royally. Embarrassingly.
Ugh, your tone is really offensive. You clearly think very highly of yourself as a supremely rational being. You might take a step back and recognize your own cognitive biases.
I am not picturing those circumstances, I have experienced them multiple times.And the 1-to-1 argument only works if you are reasonably well matched, which is not true with woman-to-man combat in almost every single circumstance. So what I am saying is that, in the best-case scenario, it often does not work. And women rarely experience the best-case scenario. I think I have been clear on that. And both Peter and you are failing to appreciate that.
So, in the absence of men taking the threat of male violence against women seriously, or being willing to understand what it's like to have to think about your safety every single time you leave the house, women should take self-defense classes? IF women were to actually behave in ways that reflect the reality of male violence, the birth rate would plummet and the species would disappear within a generation or two.
Your replies are hopelessly confused. You seem to be saying several contradictory things at the same time, and taking both sides of the discussion. I hope you find some peace, as you are clearly in some turmoil at the moment. All the best. Signed, a horrible man who clearly has nothing to contribute to a debate about self defence.
Why do these men spend their time interrupting and hijacking conversations among to show they're one of the good ones instead of actually talking to men, who are the ones causing the problems?
Because they're narcissists looking for attention. They won't ever go talk to other males who are the source of the issue. Hence demonstrating the problem.
A bit tough Kat. Maybe they're talking to other men as well as participating in this. I think they were just offering what they thought were helpful tips.
Kat has a classic case of internet poisoning. She heaps all the pain and rage of her sex onto a perfectly reasonable man who is trying to contribute to an informed if informal conversation about the dynamics of sex. The truly bad men will never even read her screed, so the fair and decent ones get it in the neck because they are within reach. I think Kat is cluster B. It’s performative.
Yeah, but let's try not to spread the internet poison. She may have had some bad experiences with men and just can't be bothered. If we have to challenge let's do it moderately and without name calling.
Please, explain it all. Tell us all about how women who disagree with your highly informed and important opinions are mentally ill. You only wrote one paragraph: I'd just LOVE to see a much longer comment detailing every aspect of how your opinions matter so very much and women need to hear from you, a reasonable man, about how we women should think and believe. We don't hear enough from men. Especially rational men. Really, you need to write a book. A 500-page tome explaining it all, in a perfectly rational way, to all these emotional women.
Oh please, Honestly, you don't believe that. Helpful tips, my arse. They're mansplaining to women about a piece about a man mansplaining to women. It's crazy-making.
I agree with the women who want female only spaces. I have been sexually assaulted by men multiple times, I was 13 the first two times it happened. Every woman I have ever got to know well enough has experienced this more than I have.
I'm more than happy to block you, you seem to read much more into comments than is actually said. I never tried to hijack any discussion, or commented on women who need single sex spaces, who I agree with, FWIW. You can't take Yes for an answer apparently.
Well done Julie!!! It must be exhausting taking on all the smug, pompous, ignorant asses in this debate but you are truly gifted. I would have lost it after the 5 minute mark.
Thank you!!! Whrn I watch his Itw a.d I was sooooo shock that he almost BLAME her and all women to not be able to be confident about their capacity to defends themselves against male violence😡😡😤
I remember when I was attack (it ends well for me. They didn't have thebtime to do nothing) by 3 MEN when I was alone in the sea, just enjoying myself... What Ju jit tsu could do for me, seriously!!!
Any women, even with a huge formation in martial art, could be vulnerable.
Julie, I was so pleased your challenged Peter on the faux curiosity schtick he did at the end of the Dansky interview. I kept yellling while he was doing that interrogation that Kara is doing something about violence against women, not just for herself, but for all women. His neoliberal individualism shone through his position. Yeah, his faux curiosity and humility are really annoying!!!
Ouch, spot-on! Even before this debacle I was put off by his subpar hosting skills and his constant bragging about famous friends... He's thick as mince, really. Unlike the other 2 Bs (Byrne and Bogardus) he made zero contribution to the philosophical discussion around feminism.
Yes it was disturbing to watch him interrogate Kara — and he completely ignored one of the important points in the conversation which is that women’s “safe” spaces are being infiltrated by men pretending to be women
Of course having sex segregated spaces does not solve the problem of violence against women— but walking back the basic protections of these spaces makes it worse!
I stopped watching him recently because he actually is not as bright as he pretends to be. He lacks the emotional intelligence to get the best results from the people he interviews and there is a strong whiff of narcissism in his behaviour.
Agree! I started out tolerating him because he seemed keen to support the gender critical cause, but he's just a self-important ego with a horrible interview style.
He's rather full of himself & smug from seeing his previous interviews - but he purposefully misunderstood in order to not concede any ground which is worse because it revealed his intellectual dishonesty. I thought you handled it perfectly & dismantled his points one by one yet managed to stay calm which can't have been easy!
Often Boghossian really only pretends to want to understand something when what he is really doing is airing his skepticism of any prior assumptions but his. He knows what a library and research are. Somebody who claims to so desperately want to know why more women don't take self-defence classes could very easily look up the outcomes for women who fight back against their assailants. Women trained and untrained, armed and unarmed. Then he could come to the debate with something more substantial than anecdote and the limits of his own imagination.
I can't understand why he is such a darling of the old left. His interviews are always unintentionally revealing of his own stances which are little more than just defying the received-wisdom of the woke left. That's his whole shtick. Hence his desperate attempt to shoehorn the issue of the race of the assailants into his conversation with Julie right from the start. (The woke left views minorities as the victims of various types of violence; well, here comes Peter, running and tripping over himself, to tell you that they can be the perpetrators as well.) Once he failed to knock Julie sideways with that point, he just moved on.
Yes I too watched it again and I think he had a hangover/ Late night / early morning..lol .....He said what he said twice over at least.....watching Julie's face said it all.....Soooooo very very tragic that HE thinks like he does and spouts that misogynist rubbish ....I hope that when he re looks at it ,he will feel truly ashamed of himself...Toxic Masculinity is alive and throbbing.....sad but true...
I'm so glad you took him (Bognossian) on Julie. You did a great job of answering his ignorant analysis of why women don't jump into the fray. You didn't back down or give him quarter. You go girl! Come to think of it, I took karate, Tae Kwon do, back in the day - even taught it. It gave me confidence, but wasn't the real, long -term solution for protection. Now, in my final decade, I see that most of us, both women and men, aren't equipped to handle a healthy assailant. Most are too young or old: under 18 or over 55 and still others have health problems. That about takes care of 80% of the population. And the attackers don't go after athletic types. Bognossian sounds so full of himself with his silly, smug, overweening gravitas. Ditto for Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and their ilk. They despise and have contempt for women while pretending they're so even handed and above such pettiness. Well, I'm glad you put him in his place. But did he learn his lesson? I don't think so.
I watched your conversation with him this morning Julie. It’s disheartening when such basic knowledge about the realities of how women have to navigate our environments is so far from most men’s understanding. Your discussion with him demonstrated that in spades.
I think you did exceptionally well to try and put it in simple terms and to educate him about the different tactics women use to delay/dissipate threat. But it was like you were talking to a brick wall.
And then his response to your final question about what he does to help women with this structural problem was predictable. Nothing really. What was it? He quietly intervened once years ago when he was in the presence of a man bullying a woman… good job, mate. Your silence at his response spoke volumes.
This was such a good point, and I love the interviews you Julie have done with men who are actually doing something about male violence against women.
Yes. Boghossian made reference to Julie's interview with "the guy with a lot of books behind him". My guess was that it was Robert Jensen and if it was, it's remarkable that Boghossian could watch an interview with Robert Jensen and for it to make no impact whatsoever on him.
What does it take to penetrate men's oblivion?
Men guard the sovereign impenitrability of their bodies with such vigour. Perhaps this also extends to their minds?
Too busy looking out for marauding herds of elephants.
Ha! That must be what they mean when they say they have bigger things to worry about. :p
You ask, what does it take to penetrate men's oblivion? I suggest that unwanted penetration of such men might make them understand.
I have often thought the same.
He's a smug prick. The worst kind.
I watched both and also was taken aback by Peter's tone. So far I generally had been enjoying his interviews with people. What seems obvious to me is two things:
- Peter, like other men, fundamentally do not understand what it is like to be under constant threat of violence
- Peter myopically only would accept 'fight back' as the response to a threatening situation which doesn't align with any scientific data we know about psychology or male violence against women.
We already know that under threat, people respond in four basic ways: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Any of the strategies can potentially work to help you survive. It just so happens that women both due to our biology and also due to how we're socialized will mostly respond with flight or fawn. We know that the vast majority of the time, we will not physically win against a man in a fight. We also know that if we try to use a tool, like a gun or pepper spray, it will most likely be turned against us. We also know that the vast majority of male violence against women are perpetrated by close intimate partners, so having a weapon in the home to defend ourselves isn't going to work. What are we going to do, hide it? What women actually do is hide a escape bag with cash and essentials in our homes just in case. What women do is go together in groups to the restroom when we can, which men make fun of but don't realize it's a safety tactic. What women do is talk down (fawn response) threatening men to buy ourselves time to get out. These are all legitimate and work. And none of this occurred to Peter because he's literally has never had to do it probably once in his life.
Also - as regards fight back - women have been told for decades to NOT fight if a man has a weapon. We can't win when either we should not fight, or should fight when we are faced with a violent thug intent on harm.
This is why there is no such thing as male allies.
They are the problem. You cannot solve the problem with the problem itself.
This is truly stupid and self-defeating. The surface “logic” of this statement belies its profound lack of sense.
The problem/horror of male violence against women is perpetrated by a minority of men. The ONLY hope for ending violence against women and girls is to secure the unconditional support of men who will, when they wake up to it, or are made to wake up to it, act against that minority.
You can’t have it both ways. The whole point of Julie’s… anger? Disappointment?… with men like Peter B is that she is saying that individual women who are victims of male violence cannot physically defend themselves against it., and he can’t see it. Which is what is so maddening. She is saying that society needs to address the issue on a massive scale, because the problem requires a social/cultural shift.
YOU CANT DO THAT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF GOOD MEN.
Saying there is no such thing as a male ally to the feminist cause of ending male violence against women may be the most poisonous thing I have ever heard. Without us, what do you think you will achieve? What is your goal? To vent your spleen on my sex or to protect some women and girls? Choose wisely.
Thanks for proving my point, and thanks for being too stupid to see that you do that, thereby proving my point even further.
After everything, the best point you stupid moids have is IT'S NOT ALL THOUGHHH
You are the problem. You are proof there is no such thing as male allies. This is my goal, and read carefully: TO KEEP STUPID FUCKING MEN LIKE OUT OF GIRLS BATHROOMS, PRISONS, SPORTS, AND SPACES.
That's literally all we're fighting for, and we have to fight for it because males are this stupid in the first place. And look at your behavior. Threatening and acting stupid because you got told no? Thank for proving my point again!
You are the problem. You're the reason this problem exists in the first place. Stop hijacking women's conversations in places like Julie Bindel's substack, and go talk to other men if you're so helpful, beneficial, and one of the "GOOD ONES" in the first place.
Fuck off. Go away. Shut up.
Who’s threatening you? Do you have brain damage? You don’t own JB’s Substack threads. You don’t get to tell people what to do in public. Keep men out of women’s spaces, I totally agree. This isn’t one of those spaces. You need to wind your neck in you sound deranged.
You need to get some humility. I am so tired of men being hurt and insulted because women don't always want to hear from you or listen to your wisdom about what we can or should do about the threat of male violence. We don't care what you have to say because we've heard it all a thousand times already.
I think it's strange when someone says 'the ONLY hope for ending violence is...'
There is more than *one single strategy to the exclusion of all others*.
Women can *also* take self defense courses. This will *reduce* a person's sense of vulnerability in the world.
Let's not black-and-white the issue.
There is more than one approach to a problem. You can talk to men about being more watchful and stepping up. That's a good thing.
And women can *also* prioritize taking self defense classes. To reduce vulnerability.
Very strange when someone insists that *only one approach* will help to reduce a problem.
If men weren't so fucking stupid and crazy in the first place, none of this would be an issue.
Men are the problem. They prove it every day. Go talk to them.
As amply demonstrated on this thread...
Exactly
When he interviewed Sall Grover he commented on her appearance, something like, do you think your being so good looking has something to do with the attention this case is getting? Then when he asked Kara why she opposed pornography, he acted totally flummoxed as to how pornography could be harmful to women. He thinks flirting with Sall and easy access to porn are his rights because he fancies himself a bold, attractive and clever man. When he was traveling the world, while it seemed his wife was back in Portland keeping house, he managed to bring up in several interviews that he felt men had different sex drives than women did, and a natural need for multiple sex partners. He is, in the parlance of my early high school days, a real douche. So glad you spoke about this here Julie. I will listen to your dialogue with the master martial artist. I hope I can bear to listen all the way through (sadly, I had to click off on Kara's).
He does fancy himself, that much is clear. For no good reason.
😭😭😭 thanks for that good laugh!
I am a man who has done martial arts for 10 years, and have frequently been forced to use them to defend myself from other men. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. By all means do martial arts if you can and you want to, but they're not a Get Out of Jail Free card, they are a 'Break Glass in case of Emergency' sign, doubly so for women. A lot of people get a false sense of confidence by training in them. They shouldn't. Peter is clearly one of these people. I do think he has given a platform to people who were being denied one, and that's useful, but he is also prone to some really weird beliefs himself.
The best form of self defence is to run like hell.
Isn't there a saying: don't fight if you can hide, don't hide if you can run away?
Isnt it possible to take self defense classes knowing it will REDUCE vulnerability, but also remembering that it will not completely eliminate risk?
This is called an adult mindset. Reducing vulnerability with a learned skill, while remembering that learning it didn't turn you into an invulnerable God.
Peter is only wondering why women aren't en-masse trying to REDUCE their vulnerability. Some are of course. Why not SCORES tho. So much discussion about the vulnerability of women. We would give it more credit if there was also robust public square discussion about women being encouraged to learn self defense skills.
It is possible, but it took a lot of real-world experience for me to reach that view. And you are giving the bailey version of Peter's view, not the motte. I can assure you that most people who are proficient at martial arts do have an inflated view of their own competence. Mike Tyson once said something like 'everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face'. I agree with him much more than I agree with you.
'It took a lot of real world experience for me to reach that view.'
To realize that *getting skills* doesn't make someone invulnerable.
My 11 year old son understands this. And he's reasonably bright but like most of us he's not exceptional.
What age did it dawn on you that skills don't make you invulnerable?
I knew about 10 guys who I grew up with who were just naturally tough, and tall, and enormous, and some of them trained as well. So maybe around 16 or so. And also I had groups of guys trying to attack me, where I was unlikely to win regardless of the skills of any one of them, and running away was the only option that would work. If someone was roughly the same size as me, and there was one of them, then I could be OK. If not, then it ain't happening.
We are all able to picture a worst case scenario attack with many people vs 1 person. Does it happen, yeah it does.
A huge number of attacks are one to one. And that's where self defense can make a game changing difference.
Maybe there are huge numbers of women taking these classes. But regardless, witnessing how many people were outraged at the suggestion that women could *reduce* their vulnerability....
All of the people upset at the *mere question* 'why don't women reduce their vulnerability by taking self defense classes'... Their very emotional reactions suggest that they are hearing the question as:
'women could shut down *all violence against women everywhere* by taking these classes. Why don't they do this.'
When you read the question like that, it makes sense why so many people would be very upset. And it also suggests that a lot of people 'read' by picking and choosing the words they want, filling the in gaps with their own heart's desire, and then flip out. Royally. Embarrassingly.
At a mere question.
Ugh, your tone is really offensive. You clearly think very highly of yourself as a supremely rational being. You might take a step back and recognize your own cognitive biases.
I am not picturing those circumstances, I have experienced them multiple times.And the 1-to-1 argument only works if you are reasonably well matched, which is not true with woman-to-man combat in almost every single circumstance. So what I am saying is that, in the best-case scenario, it often does not work. And women rarely experience the best-case scenario. I think I have been clear on that. And both Peter and you are failing to appreciate that.
So, in the absence of men taking the threat of male violence against women seriously, or being willing to understand what it's like to have to think about your safety every single time you leave the house, women should take self-defense classes? IF women were to actually behave in ways that reflect the reality of male violence, the birth rate would plummet and the species would disappear within a generation or two.
Your replies are hopelessly confused. You seem to be saying several contradictory things at the same time, and taking both sides of the discussion. I hope you find some peace, as you are clearly in some turmoil at the moment. All the best. Signed, a horrible man who clearly has nothing to contribute to a debate about self defence.
Go talk to other men.
Why are you here butting in?
Why do you think men are not allowed to comment on this essay?
Why do these men spend their time interrupting and hijacking conversations among to show they're one of the good ones instead of actually talking to men, who are the ones causing the problems?
Because they're narcissists looking for attention. They won't ever go talk to other males who are the source of the issue. Hence demonstrating the problem.
A bit tough Kat. Maybe they're talking to other men as well as participating in this. I think they were just offering what they thought were helpful tips.
Kat has a classic case of internet poisoning. She heaps all the pain and rage of her sex onto a perfectly reasonable man who is trying to contribute to an informed if informal conversation about the dynamics of sex. The truly bad men will never even read her screed, so the fair and decent ones get it in the neck because they are within reach. I think Kat is cluster B. It’s performative.
Yeah, but let's try not to spread the internet poison. She may have had some bad experiences with men and just can't be bothered. If we have to challenge let's do it moderately and without name calling.
Please, explain it all. Tell us all about how women who disagree with your highly informed and important opinions are mentally ill. You only wrote one paragraph: I'd just LOVE to see a much longer comment detailing every aspect of how your opinions matter so very much and women need to hear from you, a reasonable man, about how we women should think and believe. We don't hear enough from men. Especially rational men. Really, you need to write a book. A 500-page tome explaining it all, in a perfectly rational way, to all these emotional women.
Oh please, Honestly, you don't believe that. Helpful tips, my arse. They're mansplaining to women about a piece about a man mansplaining to women. It's crazy-making.
Maybe
Because men talk too much.
Don't you think that's a little rich, coming from you?
OK. I was giving my experience, and supporting Julie's view on it. Did you actually read my comment?
Just go away
What’s wrong with you? Get a grip
Stop seeking attention from women who literally have to file lawsuits to keep men out of girls' bathrooms.
Go talk to the males causing the problem if you think you're one of the good ones. Go away.
I agree with the women who want female only spaces. I have been sexually assaulted by men multiple times, I was 13 the first two times it happened. Every woman I have ever got to know well enough has experienced this more than I have.
I'm more than happy to block you, you seem to read much more into comments than is actually said. I never tried to hijack any discussion, or commented on women who need single sex spaces, who I agree with, FWIW. You can't take Yes for an answer apparently.
We don't need or want to hear your experience. This isn't about YOU.
Well done Julie!!! It must be exhausting taking on all the smug, pompous, ignorant asses in this debate but you are truly gifted. I would have lost it after the 5 minute mark.
Thank you!!! Whrn I watch his Itw a.d I was sooooo shock that he almost BLAME her and all women to not be able to be confident about their capacity to defends themselves against male violence😡😡😤
I remember when I was attack (it ends well for me. They didn't have thebtime to do nothing) by 3 MEN when I was alone in the sea, just enjoying myself... What Ju jit tsu could do for me, seriously!!!
Any women, even with a huge formation in martial art, could be vulnerable.
It was SOOO unfair to hear his complain😤😤😤
I would love to see him try to take on a man who outweighs him by 100 lbs and is taller by a foot. Let's see how that goes for you, Peter.
I would pay to see that.
"Underwater jiu jitsu"
Julie, I was so pleased your challenged Peter on the faux curiosity schtick he did at the end of the Dansky interview. I kept yellling while he was doing that interrogation that Kara is doing something about violence against women, not just for herself, but for all women. His neoliberal individualism shone through his position. Yeah, his faux curiosity and humility are really annoying!!!
I kept yelling at him too! So pleased that Julie has challenged him
Ouch, spot-on! Even before this debacle I was put off by his subpar hosting skills and his constant bragging about famous friends... He's thick as mince, really. Unlike the other 2 Bs (Byrne and Bogardus) he made zero contribution to the philosophical discussion around feminism.
Or as we like to say over here in Welsh Wales.....Thick as shit and twice as smelly.......
Feeling Welsh. Will say this as often as I can whenever appropriate.
Who are these famous friends he claims? I tend to judge people badly for cultivating famous friends.
Kathleen Stock among others so nothing wrong with the famous friends per se...
Gotcha
I judge people badly who cultivate and name drop their famous so called friends :)
Yes, he's as thick as mince. And like most men who are not that smart, he thinks he's rather clever.
Yes it was disturbing to watch him interrogate Kara — and he completely ignored one of the important points in the conversation which is that women’s “safe” spaces are being infiltrated by men pretending to be women
Of course having sex segregated spaces does not solve the problem of violence against women— but walking back the basic protections of these spaces makes it worse!
Brilliant, on point and true to form, Julie Bindel- thank you, he had it coming! xx
I stopped watching him recently because he actually is not as bright as he pretends to be. He lacks the emotional intelligence to get the best results from the people he interviews and there is a strong whiff of narcissism in his behaviour.
Agree! I started out tolerating him because he seemed keen to support the gender critical cause, but he's just a self-important ego with a horrible interview style.
I think you've got it on the nose there!
Yep.
He's rather full of himself & smug from seeing his previous interviews - but he purposefully misunderstood in order to not concede any ground which is worse because it revealed his intellectual dishonesty. I thought you handled it perfectly & dismantled his points one by one yet managed to stay calm which can't have been easy!
Often Boghossian really only pretends to want to understand something when what he is really doing is airing his skepticism of any prior assumptions but his. He knows what a library and research are. Somebody who claims to so desperately want to know why more women don't take self-defence classes could very easily look up the outcomes for women who fight back against their assailants. Women trained and untrained, armed and unarmed. Then he could come to the debate with something more substantial than anecdote and the limits of his own imagination.
I can't understand why he is such a darling of the old left. His interviews are always unintentionally revealing of his own stances which are little more than just defying the received-wisdom of the woke left. That's his whole shtick. Hence his desperate attempt to shoehorn the issue of the race of the assailants into his conversation with Julie right from the start. (The woke left views minorities as the victims of various types of violence; well, here comes Peter, running and tripping over himself, to tell you that they can be the perpetrators as well.) Once he failed to knock Julie sideways with that point, he just moved on.
I find him tiresome in the extreme.
Surely Peter Boghossian was asking Kara Dansky to articulate and defend her view. Surely he was expecting her to say things like
1 I might still come off worst
2 I don’t like the idea of ramping up violence and having my pepper spray met with acid
3 I don’t like living in a society where I have to expect violence in every encounter with someone stronger than I am
4 If society is ruled by the mightiest rather than by law, then you too Peter Boghossian will have to live under the same fear that women do
Yes I too watched it again and I think he had a hangover/ Late night / early morning..lol .....He said what he said twice over at least.....watching Julie's face said it all.....Soooooo very very tragic that HE thinks like he does and spouts that misogynist rubbish ....I hope that when he re looks at it ,he will feel truly ashamed of himself...Toxic Masculinity is alive and throbbing.....sad but true...
I'm so glad you took him (Bognossian) on Julie. You did a great job of answering his ignorant analysis of why women don't jump into the fray. You didn't back down or give him quarter. You go girl! Come to think of it, I took karate, Tae Kwon do, back in the day - even taught it. It gave me confidence, but wasn't the real, long -term solution for protection. Now, in my final decade, I see that most of us, both women and men, aren't equipped to handle a healthy assailant. Most are too young or old: under 18 or over 55 and still others have health problems. That about takes care of 80% of the population. And the attackers don't go after athletic types. Bognossian sounds so full of himself with his silly, smug, overweening gravitas. Ditto for Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and their ilk. They despise and have contempt for women while pretending they're so even handed and above such pettiness. Well, I'm glad you put him in his place. But did he learn his lesson? I don't think so.