Peter, since you reposted it again, I'm listening to it again. I don't get what is so hard to understand about what both Julie and Kara are saying. Like Julie mentions here, we all experience these incidents with men that can easily go south and are very risky if we stick around....like if we react to hrssmnt or boundary crossing in a way that riles up the guy in question, so we get along by being aware of situations and ducking out as needed. We don't stick around to see it escalate to the point of needing to draw a wepon. This often works for us...not always. But you really don't think that makes more practical sense than the implication of "you can't be serious unless you develop self defense tactics"? The threat of vlnce is based on when we challenge and say "no" to guys. That's also shown in DV studies. It's overwhelmgly not the submissive doormat, its those who don't carefully toe the line of the terms of what the man in question has. Saying "F U" maybe the line for one man...the line maybe a girlfriend staying out too late without calling for anther man. But either way, the same risk level exists because they have the same physical ability to enforce those terms. You maybe underestimating the level of risk based on the fact that there isn't a 24/7 unalive fest in every town, but you have to remember is we constantly have to renegotiate our limits to conform to what will keep us safe. That means we've learned the hacks of staying safe, not that the risk level is overestimated.
I'll also follow up with an example. When I was 12 or 13, my friend and I went to see a couple of bands play and two adult guys "befriended" us and danced with us and were aware we were minors. The one guy mainly initiating the conversations said we reminded him of his "little sister" while simultaneously being creepy and not leaving us alone. My friend's mom was late picking us up, and he was trying to offer us a ride and get us back to his place and make further plans in the future. I made excuses, but didn't let them know I thought they were overbearing and creepy. I didn't get in their car and never saw them again. What was the risk level? They didn't do anything physically inappropriate...*yet*, but the implication was clear, right? That is a very, very high risk situation that was diffused by a changing of circumstances. We deal with it ALL the time. It's high risk because if we aren't careful, they can successfully take advantage of us. It's more practical to avoid escalation for the fairer "s".
@@ncorp2668 How does this anecdote argue against adult women learning defensive skills or carrying defensive tools for all the potential situations where they'd be of use?
@@mattcavanaugh6082 It doesn't. I'm not making an argument against that. I'm talking about the fact that Peter is using the lack of self defense as a means of somehow dunking on Kara and Julie about the level of risk regarding MV AW.
@@ncorp2668 What I hear Peter saying is, if the risk truly is that high, why do nothing to protect against it? And Julie just retorted: that's 'victim blaming'.
Former female amateur boxer here and sparred many males. All of them held back a lot on me or they would have knocked me the f out. Lol. It's biology, even small men r a hell of a lot stronger then women. Best advice girls, is to b aware of ur surroundings and try and avoid getting into vulnerable situations.
I train pro mma fighters men and women and generally I agree. The women strikers (boxing Muay Thai) wiii have little chance against a man. The women I train in Brazilian Jiujitsus are also at a huge disadvantage but I have women I train in bjj that are average size… who could choke out the average man. In boxing a flyweight just doesn’t have the horsepower to ko a heavyweight. It’s physics. But my wife can 100% cut off the blood flow to my brain in a bow an arrow choke and put me to sleep within 6 seconds. If I had no training she’d beat me in a fight 100% tho I’m 190 and she’s 120
@ransakreject5221 I agree. There r exceptions. Most women have zero training. Although i work with a lot of Jamaican women and their technique is just to grab a hard object and start swinging for the head. Lol. Im 120lb too and trained a bit of jiu-jitsu with Carlos Newton. I managed enuff pressure to choke him out kinda but of course he was allowing me to do it. Lol
@@krisleppy the good thing is most criminals lack the disciplined to hade ever trained. Sure some and still just too strong for a woman. And cause u did bjj u know this. Many woman take a Krav Maga course and are just deluded and think they can kick balls n stratch a rapists eyes and it’ll work. You need to do something like judo bjj wrestling or even Thai vs men to understand what it’s like to be rag dolled. I trained an nfl player from the titans that’s 6’6” 310. And he’s younger (in now middle aged) and I’d always tap him out and out Kickbox him. But once in awhile I’d mock him and just say he’s weak or whatever to get him to go hard. I’m 190 and he’s much more athletic pound for pound too so despite me being a blackbelt and him being white he could always get me down and all I could do is fight to survive, to keep his weight off of me and relax so he’d get tired faster. When he did he was mine. But there was 5 minutes I felt like I was getting raped by a grizzly and a couple times I had to tap. I recall once he put his shin on my face and my neck was gonna snap. When my wife (black belt pro mma fighter) gets some 18 year old amateur blue belt mma fighter man that fights at 125 she killed him but sometimes I’ve had them go hard and it’s like me vs the grizzly. They muscle out of most subs and can put her through hell but she usually wins. The most important thing we get in bjj is understand what it’s like to be over powered. To be suffering and yet to not quit. But rather to wait. Get their guard down. I tell the teen and college girls I teach that most raped are date rapes. Or family. I say don’t use your strength. Wait. Let him think u will comply then lock on a triangle or loop choke and kill him dead. Yes obviously u could do nothing vs Carlos. But what if Carlos didn’t know what a triangle choke was? And what if Carlos had no idea that u didn’t know bjj. Honestly if I fought my wife (which I do daily in training ) and I don’t know bjj I’d lose in bjj but in a real fight the biggest difference between men and women is rarely mentioned. It’s durability. My 130 lb boys can take a punch much better than my 120 lb women. The structure is just different. Even going 20% I must be very careful sparring the women. Some guys just will not get that until the men on the team see him hitting the ladies too hard ave they teach him a lesson. A woman’s punch causes me pain. A man’s punch causes me damage. I trained with rousey in judo (she’s was the most evil person I ever met btw) and she’d try to hurt me. Even being a bigger man and her a girl like 20 I had to be careful Cause she’d break your arm in training on purpose if she could. And cause she tried to hurt me I control her until she cried and quit. But if I didn’t have years of training she’s have ripped my arm off in 2 seconds. I pity any man without extensive training that attacks a woman like her. And again 90% of men With no training that tried to rape a good purple belt woman with an open offensive guard would probably lose. Yes it takes years to get there and it’s not something a weak timid woman maybe can do. But most can get there. This woman in the video is just making excuses. I grew up in foster homes and I know many who became rapists (two went on a serial killing rampage) and these are not men that can be told not to rape. Every single kid I know that grew up bad was always bad. They liked causing pain in grammar school. The evidence life seen suggests that violent criminality is more genetic than environmental. Kids are criminals adopted into good families young are almost as likely to be criminals as if they grew up raised by the criminals
I'm amazed at how strong my husband is and he does NOTHING to get his strength. He doesn't work out or anything. I could work out everyday and still not be as strong as he is.
Biology. That's why trans identifying men shouldn't be in our washrooms, prisons, shelters, hospital rooms, or competing against women and girls in sports.
In Australia, carrying pepper spray - and all concealed weapons for that matter - is illegal. When carried for the purpose of a woman’s self defence, the reason it’s illegal is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to be turned against the woman than to effectively fight off an assailant.
What is your evidence that it more than likely would be used back on her? Was she trained and proficient in using and deploying said item of self defense? The training and proficiency is a key component.
The argument really comes down to recognition of the parts of the situation you can influence. If I am at great risk of a certain situation I am expected, as a man, to take precasions to either reduce the chance or the harm of that situation. No, obviously not all risk can be mitigated, not all scenarios can be prevented, and not all options are available to everyone. But if i really thought the danger was 9/10 nobody would understand why i wouldn't do whatever is within my realm of influence to improve my chances.
Your safety is YOUR responsibility. This is not negotiable. This is not a political position. It is a fact of life. You can whine all you want that living requires breathing and eating, but you still have to breathe and eat.
My 5ft DIL was attacked by a man in the ladies toilets for saying to him this is the ladies when he walked in, what do you propose she should have done to mitigate for this situation?
Answer to the question: YES. In whatever way she feels comfortable and able to do so, but YES. It's always been ridiculous to me that there are women who believe the total responsibility for their well-being and safety is everyone else's. I think it's a very childish way to think. To bring up that is not seems to often be conflated with condoning "rape culture" and "victim blaming" (so done with these buzzwords/phrases) when really it's acknowledging the fact that no matter how much we try to "educate" anyone or "raise awareness", there will be people who don't play by society's rules and are not out for our best interests and looking for opportunities to exploit our vulnerabilities for whatever reason. Sometimes it really IS up to us to deal with a situation or make decisions about our health, safety, and well-being and we SHOULD ALL know how to do something in that vein. For some, this might look as simple as learning to get comfortable with screaming for assistance or learning how to get away; it doesn't necessarily involve carrying weapons or obtaining a black belt. We don't all have the same ability levels, but that doesn't mean we can't do *something* to act on our own behalves that might help to prevent or lessen the chance of an assault. It's true that even with all the tools, we might get into a situation that they fail, and that's just the reality, but that doesn't mean to thrown out the toolbox. I'm not saying we wouldn't probably do better as a world to look out for and help one another, because that would be great too. For all the talk there is about women's empowerment, this is one arena where it falls short. I found Ms. Bindel's arguments very frustratingly illogical and sounds like she very much fits the aforementioned mentality of not wanting anything to do with her own safety. I also feel sympathy for men who try to be understanding because they seem to be faulted for being concerned or trying to intervene ("Don't you think I can handle myself?!") yet also faulted for acting otherwise ("Silence is violence!" "How could you let that happen?") or recipients of verbal barbs if they even attempt to discuss it ("You'll never be a woman, so you don't understand and have no right to an opinion!") They seem damned if they do, damned if they don't. On behalf of the rock-throwers (of which I'm not one), you have my apologies.
As I've gotten older, my friend group is grasping for every modality to preserve their youthful appearance. I secretly have loved not being "as attractive" anymore. Socially, I feel much more invisible as I get older and I like it. No more awkward come on lines by strangers or being followed through the store or parking lot or accidental bumping into me. The problem is you never know who the psycho is, so it's safer to just assume they all are. But the fear of making a strange man angry was real. 🤷♀️ Stranger danger. I'm in no way saying getting older is safer but this has just been my own personal observation in my life experience to date. We're all different with various life experiences. This just happens to be mine.
Oh my God! I so agree. Not gonna lie, took a few years to get used to losing my looks and becoming invisible. However, eventually settled into it and the ‘relief’…didn’t realise how stressful it was being ‘on guard’ all the time as a young woman.
Everyone should learn how to defend themselves, it is one of the most important things you can learn, because it gives you confidence to be able to handle yourself when needed to defend both yourself and loved ones. Super important skill to have
The vast majority of martial arts is bullshit. The vast majority of people are more likely to get injuries during martial arts training than during being attacked. Especially in civilized nations where crime is rare (for example Hungary, Japan, and so on). Confidence can often get you into more trouble.
Well done Julie and Peter for talking through your disagreement and ending up in a place of better understanding. I have a lot of sympathy for Julie's position: women take precautions to protect themselves against male violence and sexual assault all day every day. There's no point in imagining or expecting women to be able to overcome male violence by being more expert at being violent. It's a very male solution and as Julie points out, nine times out of ten, sexual violence occurs despite any mitigations women employ. Sometimes being ever vigilant and being physically prepared simply isn't enough. With that in mind, the accusation that men don't do enough to combat male violence against women seems unhappily resonant. We all need to do better in this respect.
Julie exasperates me sometimes. In the West we've known that male violence towards women is wrong for decades. Telling men not to attack women is like telling us not to attack ANYONE. We know. But when you start trying to open the box of female victims, feminists slam it shut. "Don't look in there! Just listen to us! We know best! It's all men that are to blame!" Well, it's not, by the very definition of the statistics. A better question is why is there violence against women? Misogyny? Maybe, but I'll bet that's a small part. I think if we took time to identify the reasons some men do and most men don't it would protect far more women from violent men. But sometimes I feel that feminists are scared of losing control of the narrative.
She wouldn't last a day if men said they can not, should not, and will not, take the time or waste their strength minding batting off or being vigilant for women anymore, we won't interfere you got this girl ! ........
@@Lehanorah1918 A typical unhelpful argument .Your inability to be vigilant enough to protect yourselves against a few men is the truth. I'm sure you think it's men ? which ones? You still want men to protect you , so which men are they ? Can you tell the difference? Why should men be protecting women ? Why can't women protect themselves ? If your only protection is the enemy what do you do ?
Peter, since you reposted it again, I'm listening to it again. I don't get what is so hard to understand about what both Julie and Kara are saying. Like Julie mentions here, we all experience these incidents with men that can easily go south and are very risky if we stick around....like if we react to hrssmnt or boundary crossing in a way that riles up the guy in question, so we get along by being aware of situations and ducking out as needed. We don't stick around to see it escalate to the point of needing to draw a wepon. This often works for us...not always. But you really don't think that makes more practical sense than the implication of "you can't be serious unless you develop self defense tactics"? The threat of vlnce is based on when we challenge and say "no" to guys. That's also shown in DV studies. It's overwhelmgly not the submissive doormat, its those who don't carefully toe the line of the terms of what the man in question has. Saying "F U" maybe the line for one man...the line maybe a girlfriend staying out too late without calling for anther man. But either way, the same risk level exists because they have the same physical ability to enforce those terms. You maybe underestimating the level of risk based on the fact that there isn't a 24/7 unalive fest in every town, but you have to remember is we constantly have to renegotiate our limits to conform to what will keep us safe. That means we've learned the hacks of staying safe, not that the risk level is overestimated.
Why is it so hard for you all to understand that avoidance is not mutually exclusive with self defense techniques & tools -- for when avoidance fails? As did Bindel, you've also conflated IPV/DV scenarios with outside threats.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 I never suggested it was mutually exclusive...if anything, that was the implication of Peter's points. He was talking to a woman that said she wants single "s" spaces to protect wmn from MV AW. He follows up with (I'm summarizing) "if it's such a big problem, then why aren't you spending mass amounts of time doing self defense?" So he was countering her tactic. No one said "stop self defense!" He was implying his tactic was more reasonable... which it's not.
@@ncorp2668 Peter is very much opposed to allowing men in women-only spaces. Until that is once again prohibited, it's not unreasonable to encourage women to take steps to protect themselves. Bindel naysayed any & all self defense tools & techniques -- I suspect because she wants things to be so bad that everyone signs on to her grand social restructuring scheme.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 No, she disagreed with the idea that it's better for W to physically take on M, instead of avoiding the situations before they escalate. Peter, on the other hand, seems to think the threat of having M in our private spaces is overblown. I suspect he's actually not completely on board with keeping M out. Ask him what he thinks about guys like Blaire White. I know what Bindel and Dansky think. Peter...he's pretty loose on the issue.
I'm not sure that Julie explained this very well, I am a woman and I felt like you Julie didn't outline this issue in away that a man could understand. Unfortunately the fact that a man can never be a woman it's unlikely they can ever truly understand how or why we always feel "under threat". I am always hyper aware that something could happen even just walking my dog, but I can't spend my life safeguarding myself. I have to go to work, I have to raise my kids, I have to walk my dog. I have to run errands. I can't just not do those things because there is a threat of something happening.
I think one thing lost in these conversations is that awareness is typically one of the first things taught in self defense, who is around you, where are the exits, etc. Any man worth his wit is going to be aware just as any woman should be too. The difference is not so much in the literal wiring of our brains that we cant understand the other viewpoint, as it is that the difference is societal and physical. I'm sure people who carry guns will deal with plenty of anxiety around securing the gun, just as I may be around securing my knife. Having a loose clip means it could fall out if I ever get into a fight, so I fix those problems or carry a different one, just like using a retention holster. The thing is, you don't go around life in every moment thinking about the worst case scenario just because it could happen, you deal with that scenario if it arrives, otherwise you will naturally relax when it doesn't. Always have a backup plan is another of those things they will teach you, what backup plan you choose is up to you.
Nobody *should* need to know how to defend themselves from others. However, everyone *does* need to know how to defend themselves from others. Simple as
I am female and have trained a few different martial arts including boxing, bjj and muay Thai. That does not mean i can handle an untrained man using his full power against me. Even in sparring I'm aware that the guys have to go easy on me. Our bodies are so different, even a man's skull is more reinforced to take impact. My weaker female joints are more prone to injury. I might be slightly more prepared to defend myself. But that doesn't mean i will be successful. And the guilt of the attack would still be on the one attacking me. I think everyone should want to learn how to defend themselves but your kidding yourself if you think women could start beating men up. Also doesn't Peter do bjj?? Is he training with ffion Davis or something? He must recognise how much stronger he is than most women?
Don't you put out women out of this equation! I'm a woman. And it is women who use corporate punishment in their babies and children first and when nobody sees. It is my mother who was bigger than little me and beat me violently. And it is my female ex who weighed just 5kg less than me, but who brutally beat me and left scar on my arm, plus I lost my from tooth. The most horrible 6 years of my miserable life were lost with this mad maniac in private, but who played angel in public.
I'm amazed at how strong my husband is and he does NOTHING to get his strength. He doesn't work out or anything. I could work out everyday and still not be as strong as he is.
I’m a BJJ girlie, and I know for sure that there’s close to nothing I can do if a guy decides to hump me in an overcrowded public transport, or if a group of men start to follow me around at night. I think Peter genuinely has NO idea what women have to deal with on a daily basis. He needs to ask women to tell him their experiences with male harassment and violence and listen with empathy.
Thank you for that. It boils down to simple biology. Men and women are just built differently and that's why we need to protect single sex spaces for women and girls.
Peter needs to go down to San Quentin and meet these people. He could also have somebody who knows what they’re talking about the limitations of defense and so forth.
I’ve tried talking to as many women as I can about this. Most do not feel under constant threat of violence but are simply very aware of their surroundings ..
I was a kid in the 70's in west Yorkshire when the Ripper was murdering women. Julie Bindel was a student in Leeds at the time. My Mum didn't go out after dark - neither did my aunties & their friends there was a tangible air of dread that hung in the air. I remember she was doing an evening course at Leeds university & once night driving back she saw a man fallen behind a tree and as a nurse she would have normally stopped to check on him to help but because if the atmosphere of the time she decided against it . Those women were usually attacked unexpectedly from behind. Just because you don't feel at risk doesn't mean that you're not - sometimes ignorance can be bliss .
@@jayWalk8well there's your answer. Julie may have extrapolated a traumatic period in her life to all women. It's clear that she doesn't represent all women, yet speaks with authority as if she does.
@@AfroGaz71 answer to what? You can shoot the messenger many more women were attacked by him but came to light many years later. Some survived with serious head injuries & some managed to get away - none of them managed to wrestle a hammer off him & even if pepper spray was around or they were trained in self defense it would have made no difference being attacked from behind & taken down being unaware until the last few seconds. West Yorkshire police were notoriously incompetent saying that the the only victims were prostitutes ( some were but many weren't) which affected the nature of the investigation - and of course they thought that the Ripper was from the north east due to a fake voice recording when he was in fact local to the area. Consequently the Ripper was at large for much longer than he otherwise would have been. What Julie is saying is that it's not as straightforward as the interviewer is making out & also that the vast majority of attacks on women are the home ie. domestic violence.
@@jayWalk8 It almost sounds like you're trying to scare me / want me to be more frightened! I've never been a person who lives in fear. I don't take unnecessary risks - e.g., I use a seat-belt in my car, don't smoke excessively, and wouldn't deliberately put myself in risky situations. I think it's a good and healthy balance. My mum is quite a fearful person and so I have secondhand experience of that kind of fear. Yes, it could make you more vigilant and help you to avoid a situation - but it isn't necessary. You can be smart and savvy without being anxious .
What she doesn't know about men , is that men are always vigilant for there own safety, we are also vigilant for others around us especially women and children, she doesn't think it's even possible
I agree with you, men can be unsafe in a whack of situations and are harmed often but we are not safe in daylight walking in a mall, a mall parking lot , using a public bathroom anywhere. It’s literally as soon as we leave our house we are on edge. It shouldn’t be like that for anyone male or female. And i know there are so many good men out there that look out for those weaker, in trouble but it’s the few that wreck it for so many.
@@chloedemure I agree with you that it shouldn't be like that for anyone 100% , there is all kinds of gaslighting and exaggerating that I could give pushback on what she said, but I don't want to get stuck in the weeds , but happy to if need be. You say women are on edge from the minute they leave they home , men are always vigilant inside and outside the home 24/7 and we have to be because there will always be a few. The feminist view that masculinity or all men or 90% of men are the problem don't seem to realise that 95% of men are the solution to the few. Women because they aren't as vigilant as men they can't or don't feel they should have to recognise who the few are end up victims of crime. As you say when you leave your house you have to be vigilant walking to your car bus whatever it may be, and you see the necessity in doing it as a form of self defence. The feminist solution seems to be either lock all men up or have "approved men " to protect her so she doesn't have to be vigilant
@@chloedemure It means you're a coward. Most (non-feminist) women are not living in terror like you. Modern western women are safer than any women elsewhere, safer than any women in history, safer than the men they fear, and safer than basically any organism on the planet past or present. When the person at lowest risk behaves with greatest concern and least courage... That's cowardice.
In Britain, being in possession of 'an offensive weapon', as a civilian, is a criminal offence. That includes a pen-knife, pepper spray, tear-gas, a sharpened comb, and goodness knows what else. As a woman in London, I do not live in a state of fear, but in 50 years I have been seriously afraid twice. My method of defence is normal, habitual alertness. I remember a man who was accompanying me along the road remarking that I seemed to look behind me periodically. I simply regarded - and regard - it as totally normal always to know who is walking around me and behind me. This is second nature. I am sure it saved my life on one of the scary occasions. I noticed that the man's behaviour was odd, and that he was actually stalking me - in public. It was in London, so I stood on a junction of two roads - I knew the area - and just waited for a taxi which I then hailed and entered. I am sure that this saved my life.
“I feel threatened on a level 9 out of 10” “What are you doing to protect yourself?” “YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK HER THAT BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE A WOMAN!” That’s basically this conversation.
I love that she pre-empted that argument by forbidding that he have a female with his same views on by saying he would be using her sex as a smokescreen. The real problem she had with it is that it would prevent her from using HIS sex as a smokescreen.
You’re missing her point. She said they do many things that are feminine to deter harassment that Peter is ignoring but he’s falling into questioning why women aren’t using violent means to protect themselves. The trouble would be this; a woman is walking home one night and has pepper spray. A man is acting suspiciously walking behind her and she can’t workout if he’s going to be a problem. She speeds up and so does he. Here’s the issue, at what point can she turn around and use the pepper spray? It can’t be used for mere words or perceived movement so she has to wait until he’s close enough that any amount of spray will get them both and she’ll be at his mercy if he’s a genuine threat.
@@Theactivepsychos that same hypothetical could be used for any example of self-defense regardless of the gender of the assailant or victim. You’re basically asking “at what point does an act of self-defense become justifiable”.
@@jasper_of_puppetsugh yeah women are just so emotional and irrational, how could we possibly have a different perspective on this than men, who are all-knowing?? There is literally no reason why women might have a different perspective on this than men, other than sheer foolishness and obstinacy! Women should just shut up and let men do the thinking for us, amirite?
I work in security and risk management. It's not inappropriate to ask someone who identified a 90% chance of risk, what they are doing to protect against it. In fact, if you don't ask your negligent. Julie's argument seems to the classic feminist defense, "you aren't a women, you can't understand, you shouldn't ask questions, and you should accept the policy prescriptions the feminist left mandates". Julie wants to fix male mal-behavior with authoritarian polices that have zero chance of working. My wife is prepared to defend herself and my daughter will be trained to defend herself.
The biggest tell was that she scolded him for asking a woman with his views to be there. She called it using her sex as a smokescreen, but her real problem with it is that she'd not be able to use HIS sex as a smokescreen and shame him for it.
I thought this at first too but I think she raises a valuable point. Human beings can’t be on alert 24/7 and looking at it through the lenses of simple threat detection and risk management doesn’t work. The point Peter was missing was the fact that (whether you agree with them or not) a substantial amount of women feel that they are almost always under threat in society. So yes, wear a bullet proof vest in a war torn area, but that’s temporary. Women are at risk in society 24/7 (based on simple biology). Therefore I don’t think it’s a reasonable solution to simply promote self defence (although I agree it can help in some scenarios)
If under threat I will not go gently. But I'm a 70 y.o. woman with bad knees (eliminates running away or kicking) and because I live in Canada, no concealed weapon or pepper spray is allowable. I can always try and scream (not likely - copd) or look for something I can use as a weapon. How long before a man beats the crap out of me? How is your wife going to defend herself?
@@Fernholio215 It is not reasonable to say women are at risk 24/7 and need to be hyper vigilant when men are demonstrably and quantifiably at greater risk of literally almost every bad thing. Basically, white women are the safest organism in the world (because of men), but they're never safe enough to satisfy their own cowardice.
@@Fernholio215 Yeah, I think she explained very clearly that self-defense is valid, but it is a palliative. I fight (jiu-jitsu), so I know very well my own limits.
@@hrossaman Yes that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Agree with Peter. And I agree with the ought but find the error is to ignore the "is" part and do nothing about it. Which is odd as she accuses peter of something like that. As if he doesn't care about the ought. Human nature itself is not perfectable, but she imagines it is. And that's really unrealistic as an expectation for an entire population. Even if we went to a time where a woman being raped would invoke the football team to severely beat up the rapist, I don't think that'd stop people like that.
An important conversation to have, thank you. I was raised in the 90s when the 'feminist' self-defence strand was promoted as the responsible empowering thing for young women to do, and our school had self-defence classes where we were told where was the safest seat in a taxi to sit, the way to walk in the street to be prepared for attack, and some basic martial arts moves to give us more strength and confidence in our daily lives. Then I read in the news one day about a female martial arts expert (she was either a state or national champ I can't remember) who was attacked while jogging and only just managed to escape. My immediate thought was if this could happen to a martial arts champ who was tall, muscular and strong, what hope was there for the average woman? Or really small women? What about the woman who is physically unable to do martial arts either through infirmity or monetary constraints? It was deeply demoralising and a reality check on the physiological differences between the sexes. Julie is right, women live with this reality and make decisions every day based on it with a split mindset: of simultaneously remembering the danger while trying to forget it, otherwise it takes over your whole life and is paralysing. Physically empowering women is a great idea in theory, and, as Julie says, if women want to do that, great. But in practice it can become another form of victim blaming.
Peter - I still don't think you get it. My sexual harassment started at 12, cat calling from building sites, the male gaze where I cringed. Being alone with a young man I liked and realising I was alone and couldn't escape if I needed to . These thoughts happened all the time, where I had cause to consider my vulnerability to SA - it kinda kills the moment. Later working away from home, staying in hotels, arriving at reception checking in, the reception man announcing my room number, me saying now give me another room which you don't announce to everyone present. Working with men, the gossip about my sex life them critiquing of my body as they compared me to nudes in the newspaper, whilst I sat there. The actual SA I endured. The pressure to sleep with my boss or I'd be sacked. The complaint I won about sexual harassment before the term existed. Never getting drunk out with friends at night, no criticism of women that do, I just wouldn't risk being out of control. I married a good man. Lucky me. I'm old now. No more sexual threat, but I could easily be robbed, the vulnerability from men continues. I had it easy. I know that.
I'd like to see these radical feminist women sit down and talk to women like you. Then they can't use the "you don't understand what it's like to be a woman" card and have to contend with more substantive ideas. But of course they won't, as Julie explicitly states at the beginning.
Why, did she say women *shouldn’t* defend ourselves? Or that it isn’t always a viable option? I doubt very much she would argue that you shouldn’t have defended yourself
Even martial artists who spend years studying would have difficult time defending themselves against a truly malevolent individual and it's a false promise to believe otherwise
Exactly, Leandro Lo was a jiu-jitsu world champion and STILL got murdered. This guy wanted to kill him, that was nothing he could have done to stop it.
Against a truly malevolent individual there are only 2 choices, to resist or to submit. Bad people existing is a fact, and no matter how much we complain and talk about it we can't wish evil to disappear from the world.
Sure, but the point of training martial arts and self defense is to maximize your chances. Of course there are no guarantees, but it’s better than nothing.
34:05 - "If I could show you that doing X would lead to better outcomes, would you agree that X ought to be done?" "No." That's why leading with hypotheticals is the way. If people won't agree with you even when you prove something beyond doubt, there is not much point in actually proving it, is there?
Yep. Peter knew that question would reveal doxastic closure in Bindel. No evidence could change her mind, because her position is based not on evidence, but rather on emotional and ideological grounds.
I feel like there’s so many things to say about this conversation but at the same time, I don’t know what to say. I’m concerned that the guest is defending one’s right to double think. To have strong feelings about something and to take no action support of those feelings. Yes, we should socialize people not to abuse one another. Unfortunately psychopaths live in a space between action and consequence. Most martial arts instructors will tell you to escape from any fight before you start fighting. And a healthy person’s values lineup with their actions and vice versa.
I did martial arts for years, and was confident, however I ended up being brutally attacked for 8 hours, all I could think of was surviving the whole thing, and putting on a brave face for my child.
Only setting a thumbs up for your willingness to share your perspective. I'm utterly shocked at the agreement with Peter on this point. I guess it's something that I still have the capacity to feel shocked. I'm so sorry that happened to you.
Sounds like she had an overly emotional reaction to a perfectly rational question to be honest. If you are in constant fear of something happening why wouldn't you do everything you can to avoid it? Its a perfectly valid question.
I agree; she seems to have some significant cognitive dissonance, which is demonstrated by the fact that she acknowledges the problem but refuses to take any personal responsibility in attempting to solve, acknowledge or at least discuss some risk mitigation strategies [*ie she refuses to logically acknowledge the solution(s)]. Also, we live in a fallen sinful world, so women are not the only ones who should engage in some risk mitigation. To quote Malcolm Muggeridge: "The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact."
She was kind of dumb. Even with the hypothetical on data showing carrying pepper spray increases the odds to mitigate an attack, she said no. That’s usually the sign of a zealot having a belief or opinion purely on emotions.
Didn’t you listen to her at all? She said OF COURSE women do the best they can to be vigilant and to protect themselves, but that the stats show that most of the time weapons and fighting back doesn’t work and usually results in worse outcomes. He was trying yo limit the conversation to street attacks (without actually saying that at first) She was trying the expand the conversation to how it’s all men, at home and on streets, thry are the same guys, and how else we can protect women, he just kept digging his same hole. At no point did she say women don’t defend themselves.
@@ApacheMagic 1) What stats? 2) She was conflating IPV with assaults in public, then arguing that, because OC spray or a firearm won't do much good vs. IPV, it has no value against random assaults in public. Sheer sophistry on her part.
The point you and Peter seem to be missing is that women do things to protect ourselves all the time. What women are reacting negatively to is the suggestion that learning how to defend ourselves with violence is the only form of protection Peter seems to think counts
@lovelover4408 I think you are missing the point of a "9" risk value. If you had a 9 out of 10 chance of being bitten by a shark, you would take some action. Be it not go into the water or chain mail or protective cage. The number 9 does not match the actions taken.
I think it was in response to that Karina describing a situation as a 9 when it clearly was all in her head. It made me think at the time as well..the discrepancy between the actual situation, the woman's feeling of fear and her actual reaction to the supposed danger
@@lovelover4408That is how Julie perceived his question because she took his example literally. Within the original conversation it was clearly but one example because I am pretty sure peter wasn't suggesting that woman in that situation( where that level 9 danger was completely imaginary) should have used pepperspray or any such thing. His question clearly was a general one. I am a woman and I took the question as fair and logical and her response at the time as a weak one. In my view because she was being totally irrational and thus had no rational answer to a rational response. Which Julie , of course, choses to interpret as " a woman being victimised by a man".
Ugh. This issue again. It's an emotional response (sorry to say) because it's such an obvious fallacious mutual exclusivity. You can forward the end of male transgressions while also forwarding self-protection until such time as the prior concern is taken care of (if it ever fully will be). We can be ideological and practical at the same time. Then again, the response against the dual forwarding is so predominate that I may be missing something - maybe women see instances of predation...no I shouldn't even hazard a guess.
"The states with the highest rape and murder rates allow gun ownership" And the states with the lowest rape and murder rates also allow gun ownership. This is so painful
@@samij6071 Bindel doesn't know what she's talking about. County by county in the US, there's an *inverse* relationship between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates.
Peter, if I walk into a train cart and there is a man there alone, or I’m in a situation like walking in a bathroom and there is a man there, we are trained from a young age to not be rude, to not hurt feelings, to not trust our instincts or not trust the voice in our headsSCREAMING to get out. Sometimes we do sometimes we don’t. Will I make a situation better or worse?!!!
"to not trust our instincts or not trust the voice in our headsSCREAMING to get out." You should trust yourself, this is why socialization of boys/girls being so different is a huge problem, in some sense the argument inevitably leads to needing a better socialization of boys so they don't grow up to be violent or rapists so why don't we socialize them like we do girls? In that scenario, you may find they do anyways, if that occurs, why should we be socializing girls to ignore cues that they are in danger to satisfy someone else?
What I don’t like about Julie Bindel is that she makes a lot of assumptions and projections. Basically she was saying Peter was insincere. That would be the honest thing
And there's fatalism as well. It's like saying "I won't steer out of the way if a car is driving towards me because I shouldn't have to. Instead of doing that which victim blames me, you should train everyone in the entire culture to drive perfectly".
Because the ideology has been wedged into society that if a women says she "feels unsafe" police remove the man from the environment, typically used as a 'time out" strategy.....Remember, "believe all women", as a few examples... - Mattress girl - Duke lacrosse team - Trevor Bauer - Justice Kavanaugh I disagree with this procedure but imagine if the police didn't press charges, left the address & a few hours later the arguement escalated to a terrible end.
They take you to a woman’s refuge. That’s her point. Women and children in domestic violence situations are expected to take themselves away from the perpetrator. That’s why women’s refuges are full. (Refuges also called shelters in some countries)
Yes. I'd like to express my thanks for her taking some time away from her cats and wine. All the chuckles I got from her stupid ideas made my day better.
Men getting physically violent with women is an extremely rare occurrence for obvious reasons. A degree of vigilance is certainly justified, but hyper vigilance? Your going to hamstring yourself living in a bubble your whole life if all you want is safety. It takes a truly unempathetic individual to commit violence on someone and thankfully they are not common at all. Male or female.
How many women are murdered every day? How many perpetrators are women? Clue: I can tell you three women a week in the uk at the hands of men. In the US? About 11 a day. Go look that up,then edit your comment. Human violence against other people is a massive problem, not vanishingly rare at all. There were 144,593 reported r@pes in the US in 2019. That’s 396 a DAY. And more are not reported than are.
Percieved 9/10 Vs Actual 9/10 I might honestly feel like a mountain in asia is about to explode and the top of it will fly to europe and crush my home, so I am nervous when I am there. The people around me would be stupid if they were to try and accommodate me to help me with this mountain top problem.
If you think women currently do nothing to protect ourselves from the threat of male violence, you have as much of a listening problem as Peter does in these conversations
@@lovelover4408 well Julie apparently did a terrible job saying that. I think you like a lot if people completely missed the point. Would you get mad if someone suggested that you take steps to protect yourself? (Because that is what Julie did)
I did not see the original interview that set this off, but this interview annoys me a bit for the same reason that a lot of feminist arguments annoy me. The complaint is often that we, as men, don't empathize or understand things from a female point of view, but how often do women bother to really consider what life is like from a male point of view? I grew up in a rough area, so maybe my perceptions are different from what an upper middle class male from a low crime area might experience. Growing up, I was exposed to violence or the threat of violence on a daily, moment-by-moment basis. I had to be aware of my surroundings all the time. I had to gage my interactions with other men with the understanding that violence was always a possibility. I had to be ready to defend myself at the drop of a hat, against lethal force when necessary, which happened with more frequency than many people might suspect. These things became second nature to me, and I don't believe that I am alone in this. As men, we don't complain, and nobody would humor our complaints if we did. It is not manly to complain about violence or to expect society to solve the problem for you. It is understood and expected that you will navigate the world as best you can, take precautions where necessary and live with the consequences where mistakes or misjudgments are made. Nobody cares. Women sure as Hell don't care, while on the other hand, violence against women seems to be treated much more seriously. The legal system bends over backwards for women, often at the expense of men. In almost all instances of violent interactions between men and women, the men are just presumed to be guilty with no evidence. Most violence between men and men just goes unnoticed by any authority (or at least it used to). I don't know how many times in high school that I would pass by a boy getting his ass kicked by one or more assailants while teachers walked by and turned their heads the other way. Maybe things are different now, but in my experience, males of all ages have always been expected to "suck it up." As a man, sympathy is not something I would seek, but I have to admit that I am tired of the mischaracterization of male experience and reality from people who seem all too happy to ignore and belittle the value of male life.
Most violence is male on male. Bad neighbourhood, you were on high alert. Most violence perpetrated on women is by someone they know. Harder to see it coming.
You make good points, but I think the feminist counterargument is that violence against women occurs merely because they are women, objectified and preyed upon by (select) men. So unstable people + testosterone = pay attention, certainly, but women receive more unique forms of abuse.
I appreciate your thoughts! Your post made me distinguish the different types of experiences I have in public as a woman: If I’m all alone, I experience having to be vigilant against possible predators BUT if I’m in a group, I often feel protected in that a man would be the first line of defense.
As the mother of two good sons, I agree. I taught in co-ed schools. Working class areas. Cane from the working class. Very few men or boys are horrible. More are lost now ime because their roles as father / husband has been so diminished.
This woman is insufferable. She says women are always under threat. So, who is responsible for their safety? Men? Government? No. The only person who is responsible for your safety is you.
And women are not always under threat. That is such b.s. and I came from a low poverty class with lots of alcoholism. Yes, we can be under threat sometimes. As can men. My 55 y.o. father was beaten up in the street early on a summer evening. Usually busy street. Lots of passers-by on the other side of the street. His attackers hid in the "bushes". They were offered his wallet by him as they brought him down. They still b*she'd him. It happens to both men and women. It's not uncommon.
@@carolynbrightfield8911 It is not uncommon largely because the feminization of society. If menly men had their way, a lot of crimes resulted in capital punishment. There would be less immigration, and the US had a southern border.
@@racs9606 : To enforce the law. That in no way requires them to endanger themselves in doing so. If you want to understand why police have no duty of care hit a search engine and look up 'Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez', it is the SCOTUS case on that issue.
I mean if the government actually locked up violent men for their crimes and kept them in prison longer than 3-5 years the world probably would be a lot safer for everyone, yeah. In fact, this is why prison exists!
She's missed the point of his hypothetical completely. If there's ANY situation that has a 9/10 chance to cause you bodily harm or death and you are aware of that reality, why would you not take the steps necessary to prevent that harm/death. It's disappointing to see that people are so ready, hell they're eager, to stand in opposition to something without going any further than the first level of abstraction to properly understand the other party.
It occurred to me just now that Bindel is English and they have had the instinct of self-preservation and self defense trained out of them. Maybe that's why I keep hearing the "if you defend yourself you'll go to prison" argument.
Maybe it might help you understand if you listen to Dave Chappell’s bit on carrying a backpack full of money through the streets at night.. when everyone knows what’s in the backpack. Living with this risk is all we have known. I came home from work today and took a nap in the glorious comfort of my home and woke up to a strange sound upstairs… I will tell you the first thing that came to my mind was there was a man in my house with ill intentions. It’s just the reality of everyday life for women. Also I’m a bad ass women but fight a man once and you know what you’re up against.
Im sorry shes wrong. Your own safety is your responsibility. If you dont take that responsibility seriously thats on you. This is what i hate about this type of arguement. She argument about an "ought" its a from a perfect world. Women shouldnt have to be wary of this. But the world is indifferent to "oughts".
2/3 in This conversation is stupid and a waste of time. Julie has a feminist pet peeve because her feelings don't align with the subject matter. As usual her emotional brain makes her look past the question that Peter was asking, a question that pertains to a closed domain with a context and she just needs to be right (SIGN language for the connoisseurs). Give me back my minutes
Why do police have to carry a gun? Shouldn't be up to the criminal to change their behavior? Has any ever thought to just tell the criminal to change their behavior instead of expecting police to defend themselves?
Right bc women going about our daily lives are in the same position as police officers, whose literal job is to interact with the most dangerous people alive
I don't understand this woman at all and don't think she is being reasonable. The idea that she has to fight men off daily has to be an extreme exaggeration. My wife is beautiful and has never had this happen. And when Peter mentions pepper spray or a gun, she talks about women that can't afford Jiu Jitsu. Sorry, some guy whacking off in front of you should get pepper sprayed and you get out of there. She is being completely unreasonable and idk if it's purposeful or not. My wife carries pepper spray. And sorry, if you have a gun and are in mortal danger, you shoot the guy dead and he's not a threat anymore.
Encouraging someone to be prepared to defend themselves is not victim blaming. We encourage men to be prepared for violence, but we don't blame them if they get attacked. I'm 14 minutes in and this woman has spent most of her time policing the tone of speech, rather than to make a substantive argument.
I absolutely agree. What's wrong with being aware. Sigh, don't think many of us would have a chance against a gun unless we are prewarned, i should preface that with i am British. My dad taught me simple techniques to disable someone and run. I was attacked in the street when i was 16 and fought him off and ran. So giving daughters and women some preparedness is not a bad idea so as not to be taken advantage of. Simples. I won't go down without a fight. Not a bad idea.
Women are prepared to defend themselves but you have to be realistic, women are more likely to be able to talk themselves, or disappear themselves out of a situation than Karate kick themselves out of it.
@@joedge6142 indeed unless you are really good at martial arts. But disabling and running doable 😁and if someone wants to take advantage he don't want to chat.
Her complaint: "You made her look bad, and you don't understand." ...Yeah, I can't understand this. I saw the interview, and I still don't understand the utter outrage. "Oh, you should just carry a gun or carry pepper spray, and no man will attack you in the bathroom." No, that's not what PB said. PB said why don't you take precautions, with carrying a gun or pepper spray as examples of precautions. Asking people why they perceive a 9/10 danger (the interviewee's words) yet do not take conscious individual-level precautions is a perfectly valid question. Individuals SHOULD be put on the spot on PB's podcast. Have you never seen PB do a podcast?
Really unfortunate that she was addicted to her own Kool-Aid and absurdly closeminded. Yes, time a dedication to develop a sufficient amount of physical skill and capacity to fight off the average man with martial arts hand to hand skills is an absurdly heavy investment in time and energy with a comparatively low return on investment. Firearms require substantially less time energy and dedication with a substantially higher return on investment in terms of capacity to stop violent crime. Statistically men are more likely to be victimized by violent crime than women. Statistically victims who resist with a firearm are substantially more likely to survive and sustain less physical damage. Her glossing over loose correlations of guns in homes and rates of interpersonal violence is extraordinarily poor evidence of her point.
I dont think Peter's question was inappropriate. In some utopian society, men would always respect women. But that isn't our reality. I (as a women) dont think I feel like I have a 90% chance of being assaulted, but if I felt that way, I probably would do something to help me defend myself. Julie makes some good points overall,, but my opinion is that she is crucifying Peter in an unfair way.
In my world I had to be vigilant towards women first, not men. Also do you know that according to statistics it is mothers who beat little children first and for longest? And this is a silent torture because babies and children can't do anything and can't vocalise their suffering.
Some of his examples she was right were implausible but i think he meant it to be as so not make the conversation too hard by using more traumatic examples so i think she was a little much regarding getting at Peter for that. But she sees so much in her line of work so i understand her feelings on it
That's not what she said at all. She said that Nevada which is a high gun ownership state also has one of the highest statistics of rape, ie. owning a gun doesnt necessarily keep women from being physically and sexually abused.
@@orsors2129 Does that hold true for other states or is Nevada an outlier? In other words, do all states with high gun ownership have higher rates of sexual assault than states without, or is this a spurious correlation?
@@orsors2129 I just did a cursory glance and found that Mississippi has a higher rate of gun ownership than Nevada while having one of the lowest rates of sexual assault per capita in the US. I don't think the correlation being drawn is well founded. The two statistics aren't even remotely related. It's a stretch to say there is even a weak correlation, and neither in any way suggests such a correlation is causal in either direction.
If I had a daughter.....and she did nothing else but attempt situational awareness avoidance...i'd insist she had at least some physical means of deterring violence..pepper spray..rape alarms...even a gun....violence from ANY Human btw..male or female.
@@jasper_of_puppets Not Indians though. They use that stuff to spice their food. Ever since my Indian colleagues started cooking for me, I can no longer tell if traditionally spicy foods are too much for kids or for people not liking spicy food.
@drpeterboghossian I fully understand why you want to keep the dialogue open and speak with people on the other side. However; I can't deal with more then 11 minutes of your fear to say something wrong and her attitude that she is the one who knows best and will tell you what you and your ilk did wrong. Each time I watch these people I understand why nobody wants to talk to them. As this video proves again: it is a uncomfortable dishonest conversation. Bad for the views.
I'm a female and I have to agree with Peter on this. That's why I carry a Beretta Bobcat. If it were up to me, many women would carry them. A few well-publicized run-ins with those and you'd see fewer women getting attacked.
That's right: by the sheer virtue of being a man, you cannot be defeated by anyone, not even another man; you will always emerge victorious! Startlingly enough, this applies to every man, making each of them both an unstoppable force AND and immovable object!
Funny, bc I’ve watched many hours of Peter’s content and this conversation is one of the most frustrated I’ve ever been with him. So many men in this comment section just absolutely missing the point
To the best of my recollection the question was something like " if you believe that you will be a victim of a man to a degree of 9/10 why not carry a gun or take self defence to be prepared for the "obvious" threat that you feel? " . My take from the response and this critique is , The feminist mindset is dangerous especially to women , mind numbingly so
@@lovelover4408 Like I said , it's dangerous ,especially for women, mostly because feminists can't see it. That is probably the reason you didn't give any explanation for your criticism, just a bland virtue signal
@@beansdestroyer It doesn't enter the mind of most people with this slant on violence being a 'female' issue that a- the domestic violence calls where the aggressor if female is over 45% b- that including prision, the sexual assault "victim" numbers by gender are closing quickly c-far more men are random attacked & verbally threatened then women. If your intested in some really scary stats, google-- " for every 100 girls / women "
The 1% surprise sx conviction rate is very misleading. The conviction rate of most crime is really low. For example, car theft, larceny, burglary, property crime, etc., a lot of other types of crime have much lower conviction rates. This is how it goes: -A crime is reported. -The police investigates. -Based on the evidence someone decides whether to prosecute the case. -If the case is hopeless due to lack of evidence, then it does not go to court. For the 67 000 000 population UK, there are roughly 50 000 - 65 000 cases of surprise sx reported to the police. 1500-6000 of those are prosecuted. In 60% of the cases it is the victim themselves that withdraw from the case, often due to reasons like the police wants to review the phone messages of the victim. We know that the false reports here are VERY, VERY high. Women falsely accuse people due to mental illness, revenge, in order to help their family court case, and so on. I have been accused falsely of violence against a girl I broke up with before. I know this girl accused two other guys of abusing her before. I have seen her messages, so it is clear they have been innocent. I have multiple friends who have been falsely accused of beating or surprise sxing their wives and kids, simply because the woman wanted to get better results during divorce. False allegations are completely common. Also, the definition of surprise sx has been made more and more wide. ATTEMPTED and completed penetration are often washed together with attempted or actual sxual assault (feminists have been calling for something as harmless as catcalling to be considered sxual assault). Also, thanks to idiots, such as Julie, there is a huge political push to have a high conviction rate (conviction meaning, prosecuted cases result in a sentence on the alleged criminal). Most prosecution services have a usually secret conviction rate target. This is generally achieved by dropping weaker cases, and perverting justice in other cases.
Just an unloved, unattractive, resentful witch, and misery loves company. This type is making life worse for EVERYone else because they feel cheated by fate - genetic lottery loser. I get it, I used to feel that way too. But being born unlucky doesn't give one the right to ruin everyone else's life. Life's not fair, but our interventions to make it right would only yield bad results. "The road to hell..." ya know? She's the aesthetics version of communism - they try to take the intelligent's advantage away from them. She's trying to take the attractive's.
16 mins in, and I do not understand her argument. If women are under such a constant high level of threat. Then why is Peters' stance on them being vigilant and knowing self-defense and carrying tools of self-defense unreasonable?
The argument of the weapon can then be turned back onto them is nonsense. That goes the same for a man that also carries a firearm. The part where she says "I will be shooting and spraying on a daily basis" shows that she has the wrong mentality and is a bit violent herself.
Tbh this seems like a fantastic argument for enforced curfews for men. If we can’t do anything to stop male violence, we should make sure men are at home so women can be safe!
What kind of society is possible where every single person obeys all social mores and laws all the time. I know literally nobody who thinks rape or sexual assault are ok. Yet it still happens daily in society. I don't think the problem is that the message is not getting out there.
Having a weapon taken away and used against me is a real concern. Even pepper spray. Although they can help and self defense can help none of it is one hundred percent guaranteed. Opportunists, especially truly clever, premeditated ones will watch and wait for just that one moment when your guard is down or your back is turned. Even if another equally strong man were the target, there are times when premeditated psychos are just going to be successful.
It is a real concern. That's why you need a self defense course, not just pepper spray. To learn how to recognize a dangerous situation fast, act fast, and get away. The worst, most careful offender won't need your pepper spray to hurt you, they are not a good reason to not carry it for the other 99% of predators.
13:32 “You used the term excuse just there, so she’s having to excuse herself in her response to you” It all hinges on this, of seeing power play instead of epistemic rigour. Julie is interpreting the word ‘excuse’ as being the woman excusing herself to Peter in a power play, rather than the woman’s attempt to wriggle out of the exposed bs gap between claiming 9/10 feeling of danger and not being prepared for it in any way. You can’t even say that the woman in question is just being extremely irresponsible because a feeling of 9/10 danger would trigger her fight/flight system and override her decision-making. I could go on with analogies about the state of emergency you’d see with a 9/10 threat level, but I think the absurd exaggeration is clear
Julie, if you see this: I think you had a great point that should be further delved into about the socialization of women, and the various kinds of situations they might find themselves in. But, you blatantly and directly said you would not trust data at 34:04 . That makes me a sad panda. :( I desperately want to agree with you. But you seem to be missing the point that this is a multifaceted, complex web of phenomena, and that multiple solution vectors will necessarily need to exist to equally combat it - self-defense, I believe, is one such vector. SA laws, social and cultural systems, etc etc can only do so much!
Julie's argument seems to be 100% emotional: She was upset that Peter's question weakened Kara Dansky's position. The truth is that the modern world is a dangerous place...and yes, within civilization, it's mostly due to male violence (and that's true for everyone...both male and female), but the phenomenon responsible (testosterone--male strength/quickness, intelligence, strong sexual drive, etc.) that she complains about being so dangerous to women is also what protected women (and children) for millions of years. Yes, it has a dark side, but the good side is why we're all here. The feminist argument seems to be, "Because some men can't control themselves, it's all men's fault!" Julie/Kara can't imagine "moving through the world" as a man with all the associated biological urges (that 95% keep under control), societal pressures, etc. then have to listen to feminists blaming THEM for some men being violent.
Peter, Kara and this interviewee--as probable quintessential “slow learner Democrats or at least leftists”--are no doubt unfamiliar with this piece of wisdom from Clint Smith: “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.” Of course…to each their own 🤷♂️😉
I feel she's wrong, she doesn't understand my feelings.... lel. You can't understand a woman's feelings as a man. What do you mean? I feel.... I know, but in objective terms what do you mean? I feel...
I have to say Peter, I agree with her logic. I was put off by your original question regarding a prior interview. I think you are coming from a good place and I love your interviews, but this was a one off for you in my opinion. I'm glad you had a chance to explain yourself more however.
If Bindel wants to walk her dog when she expects London rainfall, does she take a raincoat? Or an umbrella, perhaps? Or does she expect society to teach rain how not to get her wet?
You’re really using those examples to buoy up your argument of what ? That if women and girls just refrained from making idiotic decisions , they’d completely avoid being a victim ? If I *choose* not to wear my raincoat , then MVAWG will never end … Am I doing that man-thinking right ?
Great point. Problem with that one is it seems only she can use an analogy to express / explain her point & she holds Peter to a " in the strictest sense" standard.
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where John says to Homer: "Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you'd be set." I no longer care unless I want to care. I am only in the defense game if I feel like it. That's a sensible call since I'm not twenty-five anymore. But it's also a sensible call because why should I bother sticking up for someone who despises me? It's a transactional world, right, or so I've been told by angry feminists. I've also been informed by Captain Marvel and Doctor Who that I am redundant. Alright then, girl bosses.
Her argument is.... weird. If I was attacked, and was afraid of being violated or killed, the last thing in my mind would be "if I kill my attacker I may go to jail." Yes, fine, self defense can be criminalized, but that's no different for men. That along with constantly straw manning his argument, it's a bit hard to take her seriously.
If anything, a woman would be shown a hell of a lot more leniency by the police and courts for self defense than a man would be. Heck, try even getting the police to believe a man was the victim of domestic violence.
Women are most vulnerable to GBV in their homes where they are supposed to be the most safe. Intimate Partner Violence is the most common form of GBV statistically. Peter I do think you need to wake up about this. You seem to think GBV is irregular or abnormal. It is men who need to change their behaviour, not women!! It is the acceptability of violence against women that is unacceptable.
Watch the full interview with Julie here: ruclips.net/video/yJkmeRcTMbk/видео.html&ab_channel=PeterBoghossian
Peter, since you reposted it again, I'm listening to it again. I don't get what is so hard to understand about what both Julie and Kara are saying. Like Julie mentions here, we all experience these incidents with men that can easily go south and are very risky if we stick around....like if we react to hrssmnt or boundary crossing in a way that riles up the guy in question, so we get along by being aware of situations and ducking out as needed. We don't stick around to see it escalate to the point of needing to draw a wepon. This often works for us...not always. But you really don't think that makes more practical sense than the implication of "you can't be serious unless you develop self defense tactics"?
The threat of vlnce is based on when we challenge and say "no" to guys. That's also shown in DV studies. It's overwhelmgly not the submissive doormat, its those who don't carefully toe the line of the terms of what the man in question has. Saying "F U" maybe the line for one man...the line maybe a girlfriend staying out too late without calling for anther man. But either way, the same risk level exists because they have the same physical ability to enforce those terms. You maybe underestimating the level of risk based on the fact that there isn't a 24/7 unalive fest in every town, but you have to remember is we constantly have to renegotiate our limits to conform to what will keep us safe. That means we've learned the hacks of staying safe, not that the risk level is overestimated.
I'll also follow up with an example. When I was 12 or 13, my friend and I went to see a couple of bands play and two adult guys "befriended" us and danced with us and were aware we were minors. The one guy mainly initiating the conversations said we reminded him of his "little sister" while simultaneously being creepy and not leaving us alone. My friend's mom was late picking us up, and he was trying to offer us a ride and get us back to his place and make further plans in the future. I made excuses, but didn't let them know I thought they were overbearing and creepy. I didn't get in their car and never saw them again. What was the risk level? They didn't do anything physically inappropriate...*yet*, but the implication was clear, right? That is a very, very high risk situation that was diffused by a changing of circumstances. We deal with it ALL the time. It's high risk because if we aren't careful, they can successfully take advantage of us. It's more practical to avoid escalation for the fairer "s".
@@ncorp2668 How does this anecdote argue against adult women learning defensive skills or carrying defensive tools for all the potential situations where they'd be of use?
@@mattcavanaugh6082 It doesn't. I'm not making an argument against that. I'm talking about the fact that Peter is using the lack of self defense as a means of somehow dunking on Kara and Julie about the level of risk regarding MV AW.
@@ncorp2668 What I hear Peter saying is, if the risk truly is that high, why do nothing to protect against it? And Julie just retorted: that's 'victim blaming'.
Former female amateur boxer here and sparred many males. All of them held back a lot on me or they would have knocked me the f out. Lol. It's biology, even small men r a hell of a lot stronger then women. Best advice girls, is to b aware of ur surroundings and try and avoid getting into vulnerable situations.
This.
I train pro mma fighters men and women and generally I agree.
The women strikers (boxing Muay Thai) wiii have little chance against a man.
The women I train in Brazilian Jiujitsus are also at a huge disadvantage but I have women I train in bjj that are average size… who could choke out the average man.
In boxing a flyweight just doesn’t have the horsepower to ko a heavyweight. It’s physics.
But my wife can 100% cut off the blood flow to my brain in a bow an arrow choke and put me to sleep within 6 seconds. If I had no training she’d beat me in a fight 100% tho I’m 190 and she’s 120
@ransakreject5221 I agree. There r exceptions. Most women have zero training. Although i work with a lot of Jamaican women and their technique is just to grab a hard object and start swinging for the head. Lol. Im 120lb too and trained a bit of jiu-jitsu with Carlos Newton. I managed enuff pressure to choke him out kinda but of course he was allowing me to do it. Lol
@@krisleppy the good thing is most criminals lack the disciplined to hade ever trained. Sure some and still just too strong for a woman. And cause u did bjj u know this.
Many woman take a Krav Maga course and are just deluded and think they can kick balls n stratch a rapists eyes and it’ll work.
You need to do something like judo bjj wrestling or even Thai vs men to understand what it’s like to be rag dolled.
I trained an nfl player from the titans that’s 6’6” 310. And he’s younger (in now middle aged) and I’d always tap him out and out Kickbox him. But once in awhile I’d mock him and just say he’s weak or whatever to get him to go hard. I’m 190 and he’s much more athletic pound for pound too so despite me being a blackbelt and him being white he could always get me down and all I could do is fight to survive, to keep his weight off of me and relax so he’d get tired faster. When he did he was mine. But there was 5 minutes I felt like I was getting raped by a grizzly and a couple times I had to tap. I recall once he put his shin on my face and my neck was gonna snap.
When my wife (black belt pro mma fighter) gets some 18 year old amateur blue belt mma fighter man that fights at 125 she killed him but sometimes I’ve had them go hard and it’s like me vs the grizzly.
They muscle out of most subs and can put her through hell but she usually wins.
The most important thing we get in bjj is understand what it’s like to be over powered. To be suffering and yet to not quit. But rather to wait. Get their guard down.
I tell the teen and college girls I teach that most raped are date rapes. Or family.
I say don’t use your strength. Wait.
Let him think u will comply then lock on a triangle or loop choke and kill him dead.
Yes obviously u could do nothing vs Carlos. But what if Carlos didn’t know what a triangle choke was? And what if Carlos had no idea that u didn’t know bjj.
Honestly if I fought my wife (which I do daily in training ) and I don’t know bjj I’d lose in bjj but in a real fight the biggest difference between men and women is rarely mentioned. It’s durability.
My 130 lb boys can take a punch much better than my 120 lb women. The structure is just different. Even going 20% I must be very careful sparring the women. Some guys just will not get that until the men on the team see him hitting the ladies too hard ave they teach him a lesson.
A woman’s punch causes me pain. A man’s punch causes me damage.
I trained with rousey in judo (she’s was the most evil person I ever met btw) and she’d try to hurt me. Even being a bigger man and her a girl like 20 I had to be careful Cause she’d break your arm in training on purpose if she could. And cause she tried to hurt me I control her until she cried and quit. But if I didn’t have years of training she’s have ripped my arm off in 2 seconds.
I pity any man without extensive training that attacks a woman like her.
And again 90% of men With no training that tried to rape a good purple belt woman with an open offensive guard would probably lose.
Yes it takes years to get there and it’s not something a weak timid woman maybe can do. But most can get there.
This woman in the video is just making excuses. I grew up in foster homes and I know many who became rapists (two went on a serial killing rampage) and these are not men that can be told not to rape.
Every single kid I know that grew up bad was always bad. They liked causing pain in grammar school.
The evidence life seen suggests that violent criminality is more genetic than environmental.
Kids are criminals adopted into good families young are almost as likely to be criminals as if they grew up raised by the criminals
@@ransakreject5221 against an untrained man or a man of similar skill?
I'm amazed at how strong my husband is and he does NOTHING to get his strength. He doesn't work out or anything. I could work out everyday and still not be as strong as he is.
For the same mass, chimpanzees are 3-5 times stronger than humans.
@@sdrc92126 And they have very sharp teeth.
Humans being unarmed is not their natural state. We specifically evolved to have tools and weapons.
Biology. That's why trans identifying men shouldn't be in our washrooms, prisons, shelters, hospital rooms, or competing against women and girls in sports.
In Australia, carrying pepper spray - and all concealed weapons for that matter - is illegal. When carried for the purpose of a woman’s self defence, the reason it’s illegal is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to be turned against the woman than to effectively fight off an assailant.
It should be legal to carry nonlethal weapons.
What is your evidence that it more than likely would be used back on her? Was she trained and proficient in using and deploying said item of self defense? The training and proficiency is a key component.
The argument really comes down to recognition of the parts of the situation you can influence.
If I am at great risk of a certain situation I am expected, as a man, to take precasions to either reduce the chance or the harm of that situation.
No, obviously not all risk can be mitigated, not all scenarios can be prevented, and not all options are available to everyone. But if i really thought the danger was 9/10 nobody would understand why i wouldn't do whatever is within my realm of influence to improve my chances.
Your safety is YOUR responsibility. This is not negotiable. This is not a political position. It is a fact of life. You can whine all you want that living requires breathing and eating, but you still have to breathe and eat.
Truth
My 5ft DIL was attacked by a man in the ladies toilets for saying to him this is the ladies when he walked in, what do you propose she should have done to mitigate for this situation?
@joedge6142 what's a DIL
@@joedge6142 No one can predict the unpredictable. Men, women, large, small, prepared or unprepared. What's being asked for here is a crystal ball.
@@gagestandingready1472 Daughter in Law? I'm guessing.
Answer to the question: YES. In whatever way she feels comfortable and able to do so, but YES.
It's always been ridiculous to me that there are women who believe the total responsibility for their well-being and safety is everyone else's. I think it's a very childish way to think. To bring up that is not seems to often be conflated with condoning "rape culture" and "victim blaming" (so done with these buzzwords/phrases) when really it's acknowledging the fact that no matter how much we try to "educate" anyone or "raise awareness", there will be people who don't play by society's rules and are not out for our best interests and looking for opportunities to exploit our vulnerabilities for whatever reason. Sometimes it really IS up to us to deal with a situation or make decisions about our health, safety, and well-being and we SHOULD ALL know how to do something in that vein. For some, this might look as simple as learning to get comfortable with screaming for assistance or learning how to get away; it doesn't necessarily involve carrying weapons or obtaining a black belt. We don't all have the same ability levels, but that doesn't mean we can't do *something* to act on our own behalves that might help to prevent or lessen the chance of an assault. It's true that even with all the tools, we might get into a situation that they fail, and that's just the reality, but that doesn't mean to thrown out the toolbox. I'm not saying we wouldn't probably do better as a world to look out for and help one another, because that would be great too. For all the talk there is about women's empowerment, this is one arena where it falls short. I found Ms. Bindel's arguments very frustratingly illogical and sounds like she very much fits the aforementioned mentality of not wanting anything to do with her own safety.
I also feel sympathy for men who try to be understanding because they seem to be faulted for being concerned or trying to intervene ("Don't you think I can handle myself?!") yet also faulted for acting otherwise ("Silence is violence!" "How could you let that happen?") or recipients of verbal barbs if they even attempt to discuss it ("You'll never be a woman, so you don't understand and have no right to an opinion!") They seem damned if they do, damned if they don't. On behalf of the rock-throwers (of which I'm not one), you have my apologies.
As I've gotten older, my friend group is grasping for every modality to preserve their youthful appearance. I secretly have loved not being "as attractive" anymore. Socially, I feel much more invisible as I get older and I like it. No more awkward come on lines by strangers or being followed through the store or parking lot or accidental bumping into me. The problem is you never know who the psycho is, so it's safer to just assume they all are. But the fear of making a strange man angry was real. 🤷♀️ Stranger danger.
I'm in no way saying getting older is safer but this has just been my own personal observation in my life experience to date. We're all different with various life experiences. This just happens to be mine.
Oh my God! I so agree. Not gonna lie, took a few years to get used to losing my looks and becoming invisible. However, eventually settled into it and the ‘relief’…didn’t realise how stressful it was being ‘on guard’ all the time as a young woman.
It was a huge relief. Being invisible is waay better than being seen as attractive.
Oh my!
Thats complicated.
Short answer. Yes
Long answer. Yes, because dont be stupid.
The philosophical answer is. Yes. Because obviously.
Everyone should learn how to defend themselves, it is one of the most important things you can learn, because it gives you confidence to be able to handle yourself when needed to defend both yourself and loved ones. Super important skill to have
The vast majority of martial arts is bullshit.
The vast majority of people are more likely to get injuries during martial arts training than during being attacked. Especially in civilized nations where crime is rare (for example Hungary, Japan, and so on).
Confidence can often get you into more trouble.
Well done Julie and Peter for talking through your disagreement and ending up in a place of better understanding.
I have a lot of sympathy for Julie's position: women take precautions to protect themselves against male violence and sexual assault all day every day. There's no point in imagining or expecting women to be able to overcome male violence by being more expert at being violent. It's a very male solution and as Julie points out, nine times out of ten, sexual violence occurs despite any mitigations women employ. Sometimes being ever vigilant and being physically prepared simply isn't enough.
With that in mind, the accusation that men don't do enough to combat male violence against women seems unhappily resonant. We all need to do better in this respect.
Julie exasperates me sometimes.
In the West we've known that male violence towards women is wrong for decades.
Telling men not to attack women is like telling us not to attack ANYONE. We know.
But when you start trying to open the box of female victims, feminists slam it shut.
"Don't look in there! Just listen to us! We know best! It's all men that are to blame!"
Well, it's not, by the very definition of the statistics. A better question is why is there violence against women?
Misogyny? Maybe, but I'll bet that's a small part. I think if we took time to identify the reasons some men do and most men don't it would protect far more women from violent men.
But sometimes I feel that feminists are scared of losing control of the narrative.
Misandry.
She wouldn't last a day if men said they can not, should not, and will not, take the time or waste their strength minding batting off or being vigilant for women anymore, we won't interfere you got this girl ! ........
And just who is it you’re having to protect us from , eh ?
@@Lehanorah1918 A typical unhelpful argument .Your inability to be vigilant enough to protect yourselves against a few men is the truth.
I'm sure you think it's men ? which ones? You still want men to protect you , so which men are they ? Can you tell the difference? Why should men be protecting women ? Why can't women protect themselves ? If your only protection is the enemy what do you do ?
@@Lehanorah1918 Yourselves because of your inability to be vigilant enough to protect yourself
@@gravitheist5431 No. That's flim-flam . Who do we need to be protected from ?
@@Lehanorah1918 It's the truth , you just want to say it's all men because you can't tell the difference
Peter, since you reposted it again, I'm listening to it again. I don't get what is so hard to understand about what both Julie and Kara are saying. Like Julie mentions here, we all experience these incidents with men that can easily go south and are very risky if we stick around....like if we react to hrssmnt or boundary crossing in a way that riles up the guy in question, so we get along by being aware of situations and ducking out as needed. We don't stick around to see it escalate to the point of needing to draw a wepon. This often works for us...not always. But you really don't think that makes more practical sense than the implication of "you can't be serious unless you develop self defense tactics"?
The threat of vlnce is based on when we challenge and say "no" to guys. That's also shown in DV studies. It's overwhelmgly not the submissive doormat, its those who don't carefully toe the line of the terms of what the man in question has. Saying "F U" maybe the line for one man...the line maybe a girlfriend staying out too late without calling for anther man. But either way, the same risk level exists because they have the same physical ability to enforce those terms. You maybe underestimating the level of risk based on the fact that there isn't a 24/7 unalive fest in every town, but you have to remember is we constantly have to renegotiate our limits to conform to what will keep us safe. That means we've learned the hacks of staying safe, not that the risk level is overestimated.
It’s surprising that such a smart man can’t understand such a simple concept.
Why is it so hard for you all to understand that avoidance is not mutually exclusive with self defense techniques & tools -- for when avoidance fails?
As did Bindel, you've also conflated IPV/DV scenarios with outside threats.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 I never suggested it was mutually exclusive...if anything, that was the implication of Peter's points. He was talking to a woman that said she wants single "s" spaces to protect wmn from MV AW. He follows up with (I'm summarizing) "if it's such a big problem, then why aren't you spending mass amounts of time doing self defense?" So he was countering her tactic. No one said "stop self defense!" He was implying his tactic was more reasonable... which it's not.
@@ncorp2668 Peter is very much opposed to allowing men in women-only spaces. Until that is once again prohibited, it's not unreasonable to encourage women to take steps to protect themselves. Bindel naysayed any & all self defense tools & techniques -- I suspect because she wants things to be so bad that everyone signs on to her grand social restructuring scheme.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 No, she disagreed with the idea that it's better for W to physically take on M, instead of avoiding the situations before they escalate. Peter, on the other hand, seems to think the threat of having M in our private spaces is overblown. I suspect he's actually not completely on board with keeping M out. Ask him what he thinks about guys like Blaire White. I know what Bindel and Dansky think. Peter...he's pretty loose on the issue.
I'm not sure that Julie explained this very well, I am a woman and I felt like you Julie didn't outline this issue in away that a man could understand. Unfortunately the fact that a man can never be a woman it's unlikely they can ever truly understand how or why we always feel "under threat".
I am always hyper aware that something could happen even just walking my dog, but I can't spend my life safeguarding myself. I have to go to work, I have to raise my kids, I have to walk my dog. I have to run errands. I can't just not do those things because there is a threat of something happening.
I think one thing lost in these conversations is that awareness is typically one of the first things taught in self defense, who is around you, where are the exits, etc. Any man worth his wit is going to be aware just as any woman should be too. The difference is not so much in the literal wiring of our brains that we cant understand the other viewpoint, as it is that the difference is societal and physical. I'm sure people who carry guns will deal with plenty of anxiety around securing the gun, just as I may be around securing my knife. Having a loose clip means it could fall out if I ever get into a fight, so I fix those problems or carry a different one, just like using a retention holster. The thing is, you don't go around life in every moment thinking about the worst case scenario just because it could happen, you deal with that scenario if it arrives, otherwise you will naturally relax when it doesn't. Always have a backup plan is another of those things they will teach you, what backup plan you choose is up to you.
Exactly!!!! When I saw peters interview it was great till the end.
She makes some very valid points… I struggle with violence threats being constantly 9/10. Maybe that’s the disconnect.
Nobody *should* need to know how to defend themselves from others. However, everyone *does* need to know how to defend themselves from others.
Simple as
Exactly.
This is why I like Peter. He doesn't simply ignore people who criticize him, he talks to them.
He tries to understand and he is honest about his curiosity not defending a rigid stance.
Peter is magnificent.
Agree. I’ve usually learned and grown the most from people I didn’t agree with on some things.
That's a laugh. I used to believe that. But then I saw what did to Stephen Woodford.
@@VesnaVK Peter moderated that debate. And very well, indeed.
I am female and have trained a few different martial arts including boxing, bjj and muay Thai. That does not mean i can handle an untrained man using his full power against me. Even in sparring I'm aware that the guys have to go easy on me. Our bodies are so different, even a man's skull is more reinforced to take impact. My weaker female joints are more prone to injury.
I might be slightly more prepared to defend myself. But that doesn't mean i will be successful. And the guilt of the attack would still be on the one attacking me.
I think everyone should want to learn how to defend themselves but your kidding yourself if you think women could start beating men up. Also doesn't Peter do bjj?? Is he training with ffion Davis or something? He must recognise how much stronger he is than most women?
Don't you put out women out of this equation! I'm a woman. And it is women who use corporate punishment in their babies and children first and when nobody sees. It is my mother who was bigger than little me and beat me violently. And it is my female ex who weighed just 5kg less than me, but who brutally beat me and left scar on my arm, plus I lost my from tooth. The most horrible 6 years of my miserable life were lost with this mad maniac in private, but who played angel in public.
I'm amazed at how strong my husband is and he does NOTHING to get his strength. He doesn't work out or anything. I could work out everyday and still not be as strong as he is.
I’m a BJJ girlie, and I know for sure that there’s close to nothing I can do if a guy decides to hump me in an overcrowded public transport, or if a group of men start to follow me around at night. I think Peter genuinely has NO idea what women have to deal with on a daily basis. He needs to ask women to tell him their experiences with male harassment and violence and listen with empathy.
Thank you for that. It boils down to simple biology. Men and women are just built differently and that's why we need to protect single sex spaces for women and girls.
Peter needs to go down to San Quentin and meet these people. He could also have somebody who knows what they’re talking about the limitations of defense and so forth.
I like Julie but have never felt under siege or any of the things she describes and ascribes to most women. Thank goodness!
I’ve tried talking to as many women as I can about this. Most do not feel under constant threat of violence but are simply very aware of their surroundings ..
I was a kid in the 70's in west Yorkshire when the Ripper was murdering women. Julie Bindel was a student in Leeds at the time. My Mum didn't go out after dark - neither did my aunties & their friends there was a tangible air of dread that hung in the air. I remember she was doing an evening course at Leeds university & once night driving back she saw a man fallen behind a tree and as a nurse she would have normally stopped to check on him to help but because if the atmosphere of the time she decided against it . Those women were usually attacked unexpectedly from behind. Just because you don't feel at risk doesn't mean that you're not - sometimes ignorance can be bliss .
@@jayWalk8well there's your answer. Julie may have extrapolated a traumatic period in her life to all women.
It's clear that she doesn't represent all women, yet speaks with authority as if she does.
@@AfroGaz71 answer to what? You can shoot the messenger many more women were attacked by him but came to light many years later. Some survived with serious head injuries & some managed to get away - none of them managed to wrestle a hammer off him & even if pepper spray was around or they were trained in self defense it would have made no difference being attacked from behind & taken down being unaware until the last few seconds. West Yorkshire police were notoriously incompetent saying that the the only victims were prostitutes ( some were but many weren't) which affected the nature of the investigation - and of course they thought that the Ripper was from the north east due to a fake voice recording when he was in fact local to the area. Consequently the Ripper was at large for much longer than he otherwise would have been. What Julie is saying is that it's not as straightforward as the interviewer is making out & also that the vast majority of attacks on women are the home ie. domestic violence.
@@jayWalk8 It almost sounds like you're trying to scare me / want me to be more frightened! I've never been a person who lives in fear. I don't take unnecessary risks - e.g., I use a seat-belt in my car, don't smoke excessively, and wouldn't deliberately put myself in risky situations. I think it's a good and healthy balance. My mum is quite a fearful person and so I have secondhand experience of that kind of fear. Yes, it could make you more vigilant and help you to avoid a situation - but it isn't necessary. You can be smart and savvy without being anxious .
What she doesn't know about men , is that men are always vigilant for there own safety, we are also vigilant for others around us especially women and children, she doesn't think it's even possible
I agree with you, men can be unsafe in a whack of situations and are harmed often but we are not safe in daylight walking in a mall, a mall parking lot , using a public bathroom anywhere. It’s literally as soon as we leave our house we are on edge. It shouldn’t be like that for anyone male or female. And i know there are so many good men out there that look out for those weaker, in trouble but it’s the few that wreck it for so many.
Men are more likely to be the victim of violence. Men do watch themselves in many situations. Men do train for self defense.
@@chloedemure I agree with you that it shouldn't be like that for anyone 100% , there is all kinds of gaslighting and exaggerating that I could give pushback on what she said, but I don't want to get stuck in the weeds , but happy to if need be. You say women are on edge from the minute they leave they home , men are always vigilant inside and outside the home 24/7 and we have to be because there will always be a few. The feminist view that masculinity or all men or 90% of men are the problem don't seem to realise that 95% of men are the solution to the few. Women because they aren't as vigilant as men they can't or don't feel they should have to recognise who the few are end up victims of crime. As you say when you leave your house you have to be vigilant walking to your car bus whatever it may be, and you see the necessity in doing it as a form of self defence. The feminist solution seems to be either lock all men up or have "approved men " to protect her so she doesn't have to be vigilant
@@chloedemure
It means you're a coward. Most (non-feminist) women are not living in terror like you. Modern western women are safer than any women elsewhere, safer than any women in history, safer than the men they fear, and safer than basically any organism on the planet past or present.
When the person at lowest risk behaves with greatest concern and least courage... That's cowardice.
@@chloedemure " It shouldn’t be like that for anyone male or female."
4 billion years of evolution might disagree with you
This lady is missing the point.
4:00 NOBODY EXPECTS THE TONE-POLICE!
In Britain, being in possession of 'an offensive weapon', as a civilian, is a criminal offence. That includes a pen-knife, pepper spray, tear-gas, a sharpened comb, and goodness knows what else.
As a woman in London, I do not live in a state of fear, but in 50 years I have been seriously afraid twice. My method of defence is normal, habitual alertness. I remember a man who was accompanying me along the road remarking that I seemed to look behind me periodically. I simply regarded - and regard - it as totally normal always to know who is walking around me and behind me. This is second nature. I am sure it saved my life on one of the scary occasions. I noticed that the man's behaviour was odd, and that he was actually stalking me - in public. It was in London, so I stood on a junction of two roads - I knew the area - and just waited for a taxi which I then hailed and entered. I am sure that this saved my life.
Exactly this. Situational awareness IS my self defense. As is running when men act weird.
“I feel threatened on a level 9 out of 10”
“What are you doing to protect yourself?”
“YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK HER THAT BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE A WOMAN!”
That’s basically this conversation.
I love that she pre-empted that argument by forbidding that he have a female with his same views on by saying he would be using her sex as a smokescreen. The real problem she had with it is that it would prevent her from using HIS sex as a smokescreen.
Yeah this type of person really disgust me. She wants women to be safe little angels we can even protect children. Her world is a fake utopia
You’re missing her point. She said they do many things that are feminine to deter harassment that Peter is ignoring but he’s falling into questioning why women aren’t using violent means to protect themselves.
The trouble would be this; a woman is walking home one night and has pepper spray. A man is acting suspiciously walking behind her and she can’t workout if he’s going to be a problem. She speeds up and so does he. Here’s the issue, at what point can she turn around and use the pepper spray? It can’t be used for mere words or perceived movement so she has to wait until he’s close enough that any amount of spray will get them both and she’ll be at his mercy if he’s a genuine threat.
Raging misandrist who just hates men. She is so glib and talks about men the same way racists talk about blacks
@@Theactivepsychos that same hypothetical could be used for any example of self-defense regardless of the gender of the assailant or victim. You’re basically asking “at what point does an act of self-defense become justifiable”.
Everyone should learn how to defend themselves.
pretty shocked this is even a conversation
Women...
@@jasper_of_puppetsugh yeah women are just so emotional and irrational, how could we possibly have a different perspective on this than men, who are all-knowing?? There is literally no reason why women might have a different perspective on this than men, other than sheer foolishness and obstinacy! Women should just shut up and let men do the thinking for us, amirite?
I work in security and risk management. It's not inappropriate to ask someone who identified a 90% chance of risk, what they are doing to protect against it. In fact, if you don't ask your negligent. Julie's argument seems to the classic feminist defense, "you aren't a women, you can't understand, you shouldn't ask questions, and you should accept the policy prescriptions the feminist left mandates". Julie wants to fix male mal-behavior with authoritarian polices that have zero chance of working. My wife is prepared to defend herself and my daughter will be trained to defend herself.
The biggest tell was that she scolded him for asking a woman with his views to be there. She called it using her sex as a smokescreen, but her real problem with it is that she'd not be able to use HIS sex as a smokescreen and shame him for it.
I thought this at first too but I think she raises a valuable point. Human beings can’t be on alert 24/7 and looking at it through the lenses of simple threat detection and risk management doesn’t work. The point Peter was missing was the fact that (whether you agree with them or not) a substantial amount of women feel that they are almost always under threat in society. So yes, wear a bullet proof vest in a war torn area, but that’s temporary. Women are at risk in society 24/7 (based on simple biology). Therefore I don’t think it’s a reasonable solution to simply promote self defence (although I agree it can help in some scenarios)
If under threat I will not go gently. But I'm a 70 y.o. woman with bad knees (eliminates running away or kicking) and because I live in Canada, no concealed weapon or pepper spray is allowable. I can always try and scream (not likely - copd) or look for something I can use as a weapon. How long before a man beats the crap out of me? How is your wife going to defend herself?
@@Fernholio215
It is not reasonable to say women are at risk 24/7 and need to be hyper vigilant when men are demonstrably and quantifiably at greater risk of literally almost every bad thing.
Basically, white women are the safest organism in the world (because of men), but they're never safe enough to satisfy their own cowardice.
@@Fernholio215 Yeah, I think she explained very clearly that self-defense is valid, but it is a palliative. I fight (jiu-jitsu), so I know very well my own limits.
This whole conversation is an example of the Is/Ought problem
Yeah!
Can you explain how? I agree but can't clearly explain it to myself. 'You can't get an ought from an is' would suggest Peter is wrong?
@@BenWeeks-ca She is basically saying that men *shouldn't* be such a threat to women. But they are.
@@BenWeeks-ca And Peter is on the "is" side of the conversation.... she is on the "ought"
@@hrossaman Yes that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Agree with Peter. And I agree with the ought but find the error is to ignore the "is" part and do nothing about it. Which is odd as she accuses peter of something like that. As if he doesn't care about the ought. Human nature itself is not perfectable, but she imagines it is. And that's really unrealistic as an expectation for an entire population.
Even if we went to a time where a woman being raped would invoke the football team to severely beat up the rapist, I don't think that'd stop people like that.
An important conversation to have, thank you. I was raised in the 90s when the 'feminist' self-defence strand was promoted as the responsible empowering thing for young women to do, and our school had self-defence classes where we were told where was the safest seat in a taxi to sit, the way to walk in the street to be prepared for attack, and some basic martial arts moves to give us more strength and confidence in our daily lives. Then I read in the news one day about a female martial arts expert (she was either a state or national champ I can't remember) who was attacked while jogging and only just managed to escape. My immediate thought was if this could happen to a martial arts champ who was tall, muscular and strong, what hope was there for the average woman? Or really small women? What about the woman who is physically unable to do martial arts either through infirmity or monetary constraints? It was deeply demoralising and a reality check on the physiological differences between the sexes. Julie is right, women live with this reality and make decisions every day based on it with a split mindset: of simultaneously remembering the danger while trying to forget it, otherwise it takes over your whole life and is paralysing. Physically empowering women is a great idea in theory, and, as Julie says, if women want to do that, great. But in practice it can become another form of victim blaming.
You might be the smartest person in this comment section. Thank you for adding some sense to all the men laughing at women.
Well said! I have a chronic health condition and back pain and can't defend myself. I'm grateful I have my husband as my protector.
Peter - I still don't think you get it. My sexual harassment started at 12, cat calling from building sites, the male gaze where I cringed. Being alone with a young man I liked and realising I was alone and couldn't escape if I needed to . These thoughts happened all the time, where I had cause to consider my vulnerability to SA - it kinda kills the moment. Later working away from home, staying in hotels, arriving at reception checking in, the reception man announcing my room number, me saying now give me another room which you don't announce to everyone present. Working with men, the gossip about my sex life them critiquing of my body as they compared me to nudes in the newspaper, whilst I sat there. The actual SA I endured. The pressure to sleep with my boss or I'd be sacked. The complaint I won about sexual harassment before the term existed. Never getting drunk out with friends at night, no criticism of women that do, I just wouldn't risk being out of control. I married a good man. Lucky me. I'm old now. No more sexual threat, but I could easily be robbed, the vulnerability from men continues. I had it easy. I know that.
What, exactly, doesn't Peter get?
None of it apparently@@mattcavanaugh6082
@@mattcavanaugh6082how pepper spray or bjj is supposed to help with any of the scenarios she mentioned, probably
Lol. So many words to say so little. Impressive
As a woman who has been in quite a few situations where i e had to decend myself against a man, i disagree with this woman.
I'd like to see these radical feminist women sit down and talk to women like you. Then they can't use the "you don't understand what it's like to be a woman" card and have to contend with more substantive ideas. But of course they won't, as Julie explicitly states at the beginning.
I'm not sure any mother carrying a child about to be assaulted by a man would think "defending myself is not an option"
Why, did she say women *shouldn’t* defend ourselves? Or that it isn’t always a viable option? I doubt very much she would argue that you shouldn’t have defended yourself
Even martial artists who spend years studying would have difficult time defending themselves against a truly malevolent individual and it's a false promise to believe otherwise
Exactly, Leandro Lo was a jiu-jitsu world champion and STILL got murdered. This guy wanted to kill him, that was nothing he could have done to stop it.
Against a truly malevolent individual there are only 2 choices, to resist or to submit. Bad people existing is a fact, and no matter how much we complain and talk about it we can't wish evil to disappear from the world.
Sure, but the point of training martial arts and self defense is to maximize your chances. Of course there are no guarantees, but it’s better than nothing.
There's many reasons to get in the martial arts this is not one of them
@@VTLille Yeah probably
34:05 - "If I could show you that doing X would lead to better outcomes, would you agree that X ought to be done?"
"No."
That's why leading with hypotheticals is the way. If people won't agree with you even when you prove something beyond doubt, there is not much point in actually proving it, is there?
This is the moment that got me. It was almost like she wanted to do nothing but just complain
I wish they had more time to get into her answer.
Kinda just showed she just hates men and wants to continue with that as she doesn't seem interested in actual solutions
I think it was because she’s fairly certain that the data he was proposing doesn’t say what he wanted it to.
Yep. Peter knew that question would reveal doxastic closure in Bindel. No evidence could change her mind, because her position is based not on evidence, but rather on emotional and ideological grounds.
I feel like there’s so many things to say about this conversation but at the same time, I don’t know what to say. I’m concerned that the guest is defending one’s right to double think. To have strong feelings about something and to take no action support of those feelings. Yes, we should socialize people not to abuse one another. Unfortunately psychopaths live in a space between action and consequence. Most martial arts instructors will tell you to escape from any fight before you start fighting. And a healthy person’s values lineup with their actions and vice versa.
I did martial arts for years, and was confident, however I ended up being brutally attacked for 8 hours, all I could think of was surviving the whole thing, and putting on a brave face for my child.
Shit. So sorry to hear that. 😢 I’ve had to keep a brave face on for my child, its agonising. You did good hon. You’re a good mother. ❣️x
......shiver, there are no words.
Only setting a thumbs up for your willingness to share your perspective. I'm utterly shocked at the agreement with Peter on this point. I guess it's something that I still have the capacity to feel shocked.
I'm so sorry that happened to you.
@@Fee_V thank you, back at you xx
@@stevemahoney1733 I am here, and still standing, I didn't lei it beat me.
Sounds like she had an overly emotional reaction to a perfectly rational question to be honest. If you are in constant fear of something happening why wouldn't you do everything you can to avoid it? Its a perfectly valid question.
I agree; she seems to have some significant cognitive dissonance, which is demonstrated by the fact that she acknowledges the problem but refuses to take any personal responsibility in attempting to solve, acknowledge or at least discuss some risk mitigation strategies [*ie she refuses to logically acknowledge the solution(s)].
Also, we live in a fallen sinful world, so women are not the only ones who should engage in some risk mitigation.
To quote Malcolm Muggeridge:
"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact."
Super emotional. Very little logic.
She was kind of dumb. Even with the hypothetical on data showing carrying pepper spray increases the odds to mitigate an attack, she said no. That’s usually the sign of a zealot having a belief or opinion purely on emotions.
Didn’t you listen to her at all? She said OF COURSE women do the best they can to be vigilant and to protect themselves, but that the stats show that most of the time weapons and fighting back doesn’t work and usually results in worse outcomes. He was trying yo limit the conversation to street attacks (without actually saying that at first) She was trying the expand the conversation to how it’s all men, at home and on streets, thry are the same guys, and how else we can protect women, he just kept digging his same hole. At no point did she say women don’t defend themselves.
@@ApacheMagic 1) What stats? 2) She was conflating IPV with assaults in public, then arguing that, because OC spray or a firearm won't do much good vs. IPV, it has no value against random assaults in public. Sheer sophistry on her part.
I think the point is if you think the risk is a nine you should do something. I think he was challenging the number nine more than her doing something
Bingo!! How people not get his basic point?
The point you and Peter seem to be missing is that women do things to protect ourselves all the time. What women are reacting negatively to is the suggestion that learning how to defend ourselves with violence is the only form of protection Peter seems to think counts
@lovelover4408 I think you are missing the point of a "9" risk value. If you had a 9 out of 10 chance of being bitten by a shark, you would take some action. Be it not go into the water or chain mail or protective cage. The number 9 does not match the actions taken.
I think it was in response to that Karina describing a situation as a 9 when it clearly was all in her head. It made me think at the time as well..the discrepancy between the actual situation, the woman's feeling of fear and her actual reaction to the supposed danger
@@lovelover4408That is how Julie perceived his question because she took his example literally. Within the original conversation it was clearly but one example because I am pretty sure peter wasn't suggesting that woman in that situation( where that level 9 danger was completely imaginary) should have used pepperspray or any such thing.
His question clearly was a general one.
I am a woman and I took the question as fair and logical and her response at the time as a weak one. In my view because she was being totally irrational and thus had no rational answer to a rational response. Which Julie , of course, choses to interpret as " a woman being victimised by a man".
Ugh. This issue again. It's an emotional response (sorry to say) because it's such an obvious fallacious mutual exclusivity. You can forward the end of male transgressions while also forwarding self-protection until such time as the prior concern is taken care of (if it ever fully will be). We can be ideological and practical at the same time. Then again, the response against the dual forwarding is so predominate that I may be missing something - maybe women see instances of predation...no I shouldn't even hazard a guess.
This woman is insufferable. Needs a trigger warning.
"The states with the highest rape and murder rates allow gun ownership"
And the states with the lowest rape and murder rates also allow gun ownership.
This is so painful
Please, England person, tell me all about my country.
That wasn't what she said. She was talking abt the rates of gun ownership, not whether it's legal or not. 😊
@@samij6071 Bindel doesn't know what she's talking about. County by county in the US, there's an *inverse* relationship between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates.
Peter, if I walk into a train cart and there is a man there alone, or I’m in a situation like walking in a bathroom and there is a man there, we are trained from a young age to not be rude, to not hurt feelings, to not trust our instincts or not trust the voice in our headsSCREAMING to get out.
Sometimes we do sometimes we don’t. Will I make a situation better or worse?!!!
you need to carry and train and not go places you cannot carry..... and move on with your day.
"to not trust our instincts or not trust the voice in our headsSCREAMING to get out."
You should trust yourself, this is why socialization of boys/girls being so different is a huge problem, in some sense the argument inevitably leads to needing a better socialization of boys so they don't grow up to be violent or rapists so why don't we socialize them like we do girls? In that scenario, you may find they do anyways, if that occurs, why should we be socializing girls to ignore cues that they are in danger to satisfy someone else?
@@MsQ275no ❤
@@MsQ275 carry?! I don’t live in the Wild West.
What I don’t like about Julie Bindel is that she makes a lot of assumptions and projections. Basically she was saying Peter was insincere. That would be the honest thing
And there's fatalism as well. It's like saying "I won't steer out of the way if a car is driving towards me because I shouldn't have to. Instead of doing that which victim blames me, you should train everyone in the entire culture to drive perfectly".
I love my 2A.
Conversation over. Move on.
OK well some of us don’t want to constantly carry a gun and we deserve to be safe too
@@lovelover4408Ok well... do you have some sort of super power or magic or something else then?
If you're not charged with a crime, what right do the police have to remove you from your own house???
Because the ideology has been wedged into society that if a women says she "feels unsafe" police remove the man from the environment, typically used as a 'time out" strategy.....Remember, "believe all women", as a few examples...
- Mattress girl
- Duke lacrosse team
- Trevor Bauer
- Justice Kavanaugh
I disagree with this procedure but imagine if the police didn't press charges, left the address & a few hours later the arguement escalated to a terrible end.
Men are underclass dehumanised so laws & human rights don't apply to them
They take you to a woman’s refuge. That’s her point. Women and children in domestic violence situations are expected to take themselves away from the perpetrator. That’s why women’s refuges are full. (Refuges also called shelters in some countries)
Thank you Julie!!!!!!!!!
For what? She is so glib and myopic. She talks about men the way racists talk about blacks. "Just stop doing crime"
Yes. I'd like to express my thanks for her taking some time away from her cats and wine. All the chuckles I got from her stupid ideas made my day better.
@@N7senseigosh you seem like a real winner, spending all this time mocking women for talking about how we avoid male violence
As much as Julie has entered the fight against trans ideology, remember that she is an out and out misandrist.
Men getting physically violent with women is an extremely rare occurrence for obvious reasons. A degree of vigilance is certainly justified, but hyper vigilance? Your going to hamstring yourself living in a bubble your whole life if all you want is safety. It takes a truly unempathetic individual to commit violence on someone and thankfully they are not common at all. Male or female.
How many women are murdered every day?
How many perpetrators are women?
Clue: I can tell you three women a week in the uk at the hands of men. In the US? About 11 a day.
Go look that up,then edit your comment. Human violence against other people is a massive problem, not vanishingly rare at all.
There were 144,593 reported r@pes in the US in 2019. That’s 396 a DAY. And more are not reported than are.
9 outta 10 level of danger? That doesn't change ones behavior? Huh?
Percieved 9/10
Vs
Actual 9/10
I might honestly feel like a mountain in asia is about to explode and the top of it will fly to europe and crush my home, so I am nervous when I am there.
The people around me would be stupid if they were to try and accommodate me to help me with this mountain top problem.
I still don’t think Dansky or Bindel understand how illogical their position is
@@beebobox If you perceive it to be 9/10 and you are logically consistent, you prepare for the danger.
If you think women currently do nothing to protect ourselves from the threat of male violence, you have as much of a listening problem as Peter does in these conversations
@@lovelover4408 well Julie apparently did a terrible job saying that. I think you like a lot if people completely missed the point. Would you get mad if someone suggested that you take steps to protect yourself? (Because that is what Julie did)
I did not see the original interview that set this off, but this interview annoys me a bit for the same reason that a lot of feminist arguments annoy me. The complaint is often that we, as men, don't empathize or understand things from a female point of view, but how often do women bother to really consider what life is like from a male point of view? I grew up in a rough area, so maybe my perceptions are different from what an upper middle class male from a low crime area might experience. Growing up, I was exposed to violence or the threat of violence on a daily, moment-by-moment basis. I had to be aware of my surroundings all the time. I had to gage my interactions with other men with the understanding that violence was always a possibility. I had to be ready to defend myself at the drop of a hat, against lethal force when necessary, which happened with more frequency than many people might suspect. These things became second nature to me, and I don't believe that I am alone in this. As men, we don't complain, and nobody would humor our complaints if we did. It is not manly to complain about violence or to expect society to solve the problem for you. It is understood and expected that you will navigate the world as best you can, take precautions where necessary and live with the consequences where mistakes or misjudgments are made. Nobody cares.
Women sure as Hell don't care, while on the other hand, violence against women seems to be treated much more seriously. The legal system bends over backwards for women, often at the expense of men. In almost all instances of violent interactions between men and women, the men are just presumed to be guilty with no evidence. Most violence between men and men just goes unnoticed by any authority (or at least it used to). I don't know how many times in high school that I would pass by a boy getting his ass kicked by one or more assailants while teachers walked by and turned their heads the other way. Maybe things are different now, but in my experience, males of all ages have always been expected to "suck it up."
As a man, sympathy is not something I would seek, but I have to admit that I am tired of the mischaracterization of male experience and reality from people who seem all too happy to ignore and belittle the value of male life.
Men are more likely to be attacked by a man than a woman is
Most violence is male on male. Bad neighbourhood, you were on high alert. Most violence perpetrated on women is by someone they know. Harder to see it coming.
You make good points, but I think the feminist counterargument is that violence against women occurs merely because they are women, objectified and preyed upon by (select) men. So unstable people + testosterone = pay attention, certainly, but women receive more unique forms of abuse.
I appreciate your thoughts! Your post made me distinguish the different types of experiences I have in public as a woman: If I’m all alone, I experience having to be vigilant against possible predators BUT if I’m in a group, I often feel protected in that a man would be the first line of defense.
As the mother of two good sons, I agree. I taught in co-ed schools. Working class areas. Cane from the working class. Very few men or boys are horrible. More are lost now ime because their roles as father / husband has been so diminished.
This woman is insufferable. She says women are always under threat. So, who is responsible for their safety? Men? Government? No. The only person who is responsible for your safety is you.
And women are not always under threat. That is such b.s. and I came from a low poverty class with lots of alcoholism. Yes, we can be under threat sometimes. As can men. My 55 y.o. father was beaten up in the street early on a summer evening. Usually busy street. Lots of passers-by on the other side of the street. His attackers hid in the "bushes". They were offered his wallet by him as they brought him down. They still b*she'd him. It happens to both men and women. It's not uncommon.
@@carolynbrightfield8911
It is not uncommon largely because the feminization of society.
If menly men had their way, a lot of crimes resulted in capital punishment. There would be less immigration, and the US had a southern border.
So why do we have a police force?
@@racs9606 : To enforce the law. That in no way requires them to endanger themselves in doing so. If you want to understand why police have no duty of care hit a search engine and look up 'Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez', it is the SCOTUS case on that issue.
I mean if the government actually locked up violent men for their crimes and kept them in prison longer than 3-5 years the world probably would be a lot safer for everyone, yeah. In fact, this is why prison exists!
She's missed the point of his hypothetical completely. If there's ANY situation that has a 9/10 chance to cause you bodily harm or death and you are aware of that reality, why would you not take the steps necessary to prevent that harm/death. It's disappointing to see that people are so ready, hell they're eager, to stand in opposition to something without going any further than the first level of abstraction to properly understand the other party.
It occurred to me just now that Bindel is English and they have had the instinct of self-preservation and self defense trained out of them. Maybe that's why I keep hearing the "if you defend yourself you'll go to prison" argument.
@@squoctopus Which explains why the UK is deteriorating due to ingress of radical ideologies from abroad.
@@jasper_of_puppets 🎯
@@squoctopus UK doesn't even have a Castle Doctrine.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 good Lord!
Maybe it might help you understand if you listen to Dave Chappell’s bit on carrying a backpack full of money through the streets at night.. when everyone knows what’s in the backpack. Living with this risk is all we have known. I came home from work today and took a nap in the glorious comfort of my home and woke up to a strange sound upstairs… I will tell you the first thing that came to my mind was there was a man in my house with ill intentions. It’s just the reality of everyday life for women. Also I’m a bad ass women but fight a man once and you know what you’re up against.
I like Wanda Sykes skit “I left my p*ssy home.”
Im sorry shes wrong. Your own safety is your responsibility. If you dont take that responsibility seriously thats on you. This is what i hate about this type of arguement. She argument about an "ought" its a from a perfect world.
Women shouldnt have to be wary of this. But the world is indifferent to "oughts".
Society needs to protect everyone especially the vulnerable. Women and children. It’s the mark of an advanced civilization.
2/3 in
This conversation is stupid and a waste of time. Julie has a feminist pet peeve because her feelings don't align with the subject matter. As usual her emotional brain makes her look past the question that Peter was asking, a question that pertains to a closed domain with a context and she just needs to be right (SIGN language for the connoisseurs).
Give me back my minutes
Why do police have to carry a gun? Shouldn't be up to the criminal to change their behavior? Has any ever thought to just tell the criminal to change their behavior instead of expecting police to defend themselves?
Right bc women going about our daily lives are in the same position as police officers, whose literal job is to interact with the most dangerous people alive
I don't understand this woman at all and don't think she is being reasonable. The idea that she has to fight men off daily has to be an extreme exaggeration. My wife is beautiful and has never had this happen. And when Peter mentions pepper spray or a gun, she talks about women that can't afford Jiu Jitsu. Sorry, some guy whacking off in front of you should get pepper sprayed and you get out of there. She is being completely unreasonable and idk if it's purposeful or not. My wife carries pepper spray. And sorry, if you have a gun and are in mortal danger, you shoot the guy dead and he's not a threat anymore.
Encouraging someone to be prepared to defend themselves is not victim blaming. We encourage men to be prepared for violence, but we don't blame them if they get attacked.
I'm 14 minutes in and this woman has spent most of her time policing the tone of speech, rather than to make a substantive argument.
I absolutely agree. What's wrong with being aware. Sigh, don't think many of us would have a chance against a gun unless we are prewarned, i should preface that with i am British. My dad taught me simple techniques to disable someone and run. I was attacked in the street when i was 16 and fought him off and ran. So giving daughters and women some preparedness is not a bad idea so as not to be taken advantage of. Simples. I won't go down without a fight. Not a bad idea.
Women are prepared to defend themselves but you have to be realistic, women are more likely to be able to talk themselves, or disappear themselves out of a situation than Karate kick themselves out of it.
@@joedge6142 indeed unless you are really good at martial arts. But disabling and running doable 😁and if someone wants to take advantage he don't want to chat.
“Victim blaming” is just a term that’s used when someone can’t refute your point.
Her complaint: "You made her look bad, and you don't understand."
...Yeah, I can't understand this. I saw the interview, and I still don't understand the utter outrage.
"Oh, you should just carry a gun or carry pepper spray, and no man will attack you in the bathroom." No, that's not what PB said. PB said why don't you take precautions, with carrying a gun or pepper spray as examples of precautions.
Asking people why they perceive a 9/10 danger (the interviewee's words) yet do not take conscious individual-level precautions is a perfectly valid question.
Individuals SHOULD be put on the spot on PB's podcast. Have you never seen PB do a podcast?
Really unfortunate that she was addicted to her own Kool-Aid and absurdly closeminded. Yes, time a dedication to develop a sufficient amount of physical skill and capacity to fight off the average man with martial arts hand to hand skills is an absurdly heavy investment in time and energy with a comparatively low return on investment. Firearms require substantially less time energy and dedication with a substantially higher return on investment in terms of capacity to stop violent crime. Statistically men are more likely to be victimized by violent crime than women. Statistically victims who resist with a firearm are substantially more likely to survive and sustain less physical damage. Her glossing over loose correlations of guns in homes and rates of interpersonal violence is extraordinarily poor evidence of her point.
I think everyone needs to know how to defend themselves.
I get to the end of this and theres no solution offered. Whats the solution? Because apparently asking questions isn't allowed.
I dont think Peter's question was inappropriate. In some utopian society, men would always respect women. But that isn't our reality. I (as a women) dont think I feel like I have a 90% chance of being assaulted, but if I felt that way, I probably would do something to help me defend myself. Julie makes some good points overall,, but my opinion is that she is crucifying Peter in an unfair way.
In my world I had to be vigilant towards women first, not men. Also do you know that according to statistics it is mothers who beat little children first and for longest? And this is a silent torture because babies and children can't do anything and can't vocalise their suffering.
Some of his examples she was right were implausible but i think he meant it to be as so not make the conversation too hard by using more traumatic examples so i think she was a little much regarding getting at Peter for that. But she sees so much in her line of work so i understand her feelings on it
What in the narcissist is this woman talking about.
Claiming that legal gun ownership rates and rape are correlated 😂. You sure about that, slick?
That's not what she said at all. She said that Nevada which is a high gun ownership state also has one of the highest statistics of rape, ie. owning a gun doesnt necessarily keep women from being physically and sexually abused.
@@orsors2129 Does that hold true for other states or is Nevada an outlier? In other words, do all states with high gun ownership have higher rates of sexual assault than states without, or is this a spurious correlation?
@@orsors2129 I just did a cursory glance and found that Mississippi has a higher rate of gun ownership than Nevada while having one of the lowest rates of sexual assault per capita in the US. I don't think the correlation being drawn is well founded. The two statistics aren't even remotely related. It's a stretch to say there is even a weak correlation, and neither in any way suggests such a correlation is causal in either direction.
@@Viral9 What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas
OMFG. Think of a man. Then, take away reason and accountability…
Literally tone policing.
If the world was as bad as this person implies its a wonder a single woman is still alive. Plus she clearly understands nothing about fighting.
If I had a daughter.....and she did nothing else but attempt situational awareness avoidance...i'd insist she had at least some physical means of deterring violence..pepper spray..rape alarms...even a gun....violence from ANY Human btw..male or female.
Violence may not even come from a human. Pepper spray can be effective in warding off a dog attack.
@@jasper_of_puppets
Not Indians though. They use that stuff to spice their food. Ever since my Indian colleagues started cooking for me, I can no longer tell if traditionally spicy foods are too much for kids or for people not liking spicy food.
@drpeterboghossian
I fully understand why you want to keep the dialogue open and speak with people on the other side.
However; I can't deal with more then 11 minutes of your fear to say something wrong and her attitude that she is the one who knows best and will tell you what you and your ilk did wrong.
Each time I watch these people I understand why nobody wants to talk to them. As this video proves again: it is a uncomfortable dishonest conversation. Bad for the views.
Are men a herd of marauding elephants? Is this the analogy?
I would say no, i believe Peter was attempting it as a metaphor
I'm a female and I have to agree with Peter on this. That's why I carry a Beretta Bobcat. If it were up to me, many women would carry them. A few well-publicized run-ins with those and you'd see fewer women getting attacked.
What’s your suggestion for women who don’t want to carry weapons that could be taken and used against us?
I didn't know I was invincible until Julie Bindel told me.
That's right: by the sheer virtue of being a man, you cannot be defeated by anyone, not even another man; you will always emerge victorious! Startlingly enough, this applies to every man, making each of them both an unstoppable force AND and immovable object!
@@VestinVestin lmfao!!!
And protected by law. A woman has to be unalived before she can prove she was right to react in self defence.
@@NeraBuffy I assume that's also sarcasm.
@@MrAgnosticman many examples like Piper Lewis, Sarah Gonzalez- McLinn, Roxana Ruiz Santiago,Cyntoia Brown-Long ....
My god this woman is insufferable.
Joke aside, wow. Huge respect for Peter. I don't know how he could stand her.
Funny, bc I’ve watched many hours of Peter’s content and this conversation is one of the most frustrated I’ve ever been with him. So many men in this comment section just absolutely missing the point
To the best of my recollection the question was something like " if you believe that you will be a victim of a man to a degree of 9/10 why not carry a gun or take self defence to be prepared for the "obvious" threat that you feel? " . My take from the response and this critique is , The feminist mindset is dangerous especially to women , mind numbingly so
Complaining about men is fun, and it's how women bond and enjoy themselves. BOGO ruins the game by expecting KD & JB to take it back to reality.
You sound like someone who does not understand feminism ❤
@@lovelover4408 Like I said , it's dangerous ,especially for women, mostly because feminists can't see it.
That is probably the reason you didn't give any explanation for your criticism, just a bland virtue signal
More evidence of why Peter is my hero. That is a masterclass in attempting a conversation.
I love how he ignores her being cheeky and rude and just stays the chorus he does that during his street exercises too
I feel bad for this woman.
I feel frustrated by this women's at best jaded p.o.v. & towards worst, her misandristic bias.
Funny how she always leaves out how much more men are victimized violently
@@beansdestroyer It doesn't enter the mind of most people with this slant on violence being a 'female' issue that
a- the domestic violence calls where the aggressor if female is over 45%
b- that including prision, the sexual assault "victim" numbers by gender are closing quickly
c-far more men are random attacked & verbally threatened then women.
If your intested in some really scary stats, google-- " for every 100 girls / women "
The 1% surprise sx conviction rate is very misleading.
The conviction rate of most crime is really low. For example, car theft, larceny, burglary, property crime, etc., a lot of other types of crime have much lower conviction rates.
This is how it goes:
-A crime is reported.
-The police investigates.
-Based on the evidence someone decides whether to prosecute the case.
-If the case is hopeless due to lack of evidence, then it does not go to court.
For the 67 000 000 population UK, there are roughly 50 000 - 65 000 cases of surprise sx reported to the police. 1500-6000 of those are prosecuted.
In 60% of the cases it is the victim themselves that withdraw from the case, often due to reasons like the police wants to review the phone messages of the victim.
We know that the false reports here are VERY, VERY high. Women falsely accuse people due to mental illness, revenge, in order to help their family court case, and so on. I have been accused falsely of violence against a girl I broke up with before. I know this girl accused two other guys of abusing her before. I have seen her messages, so it is clear they have been innocent. I have multiple friends who have been falsely accused of beating or surprise sxing their wives and kids, simply because the woman wanted to get better results during divorce. False allegations are completely common.
Also, the definition of surprise sx has been made more and more wide. ATTEMPTED and completed penetration are often washed together with attempted or actual sxual assault (feminists have been calling for something as harmless as catcalling to be considered sxual assault).
Also, thanks to idiots, such as Julie, there is a huge political push to have a high conviction rate (conviction meaning, prosecuted cases result in a sentence on the alleged criminal). Most prosecution services have a usually secret conviction rate target. This is generally achieved by dropping weaker cases, and perverting justice in other cases.
Look up the documentary “An Army of Women”
Yes. With the help of other men, and society.
Question should be. Do men have to endure blanket attacks on them from women like this?
Just an unloved, unattractive, resentful witch, and misery loves company. This type is making life worse for EVERYone else because they feel cheated by fate - genetic lottery loser. I get it, I used to feel that way too. But being born unlucky doesn't give one the right to ruin everyone else's life. Life's not fair, but our interventions to make it right would only yield bad results. "The road to hell..." ya know? She's the aesthetics version of communism - they try to take the intelligent's advantage away from them. She's trying to take the attractive's.
From other men certainly.
I understand your statement, and I know wonderful men, but I would choose another word than attack here.
Exactly I have never done any of those things and yet I get lumped in with them.
@@gb4375 Ok, constant blanket psychological abuse tacitly accepted by society, and promoted by institutions and government.
16 mins in, and I do not understand her argument. If women are under such a constant high level of threat. Then why is Peters' stance on them being vigilant and knowing self-defense and carrying tools of self-defense unreasonable?
The argument of the weapon can then be turned back onto them is nonsense. That goes the same for a man that also carries a firearm.
The part where she says "I will be shooting and spraying on a daily basis" shows that she has the wrong mentality and is a bit violent herself.
What a fantastic argument for women to be treated like children.
I know, right? _"This is not the own you think it is."_
Tbh this seems like a fantastic argument for enforced curfews for men. If we can’t do anything to stop male violence, we should make sure men are at home so women can be safe!
Chris Rock has a good bit on carrying a back pack full of cash. It's very pertinent to this conversation. I'll link it if I can find it.
If a car accident chance is only a 1/1000 chance, would she wear a seatbelt?
She certainly wouldn't if there was a 9/10 chance of it happening.
It is more like 1 in 100... for death... We can assume she wears it because she doesn't want to get fined.
Stupid and pointless argument.
What kind of society is possible where every single person obeys all social mores and laws all the time. I know literally nobody who thinks rape or sexual assault are ok. Yet it still happens daily in society. I don't think the problem is that the message is not getting out there.
No, the problem is that these crimes aren’t punished, and the perpetrators can then commit them against more people
Having a weapon taken away and used against me is a real concern. Even pepper spray. Although they can help and self defense can help none of it is one hundred percent guaranteed. Opportunists, especially truly clever, premeditated ones will watch and wait for just that one moment when your guard is down or your back is turned. Even if another equally strong man were the target, there are times when premeditated psychos are just going to be successful.
I think if you are in that situation it doesn't matter
First strike is everything.
This ain’t fucking csi New York
It is a real concern. That's why you need a self defense course, not just pepper spray. To learn how to recognize a dangerous situation fast, act fast, and get away. The worst, most careful offender won't need your pepper spray to hurt you, they are not a good reason to not carry it for the other 99% of predators.
What training, if any, have you had with OC spray or firearms?
Without a firearm, good luck
Forget testosterone, smith and wesson will make any size woman a big strong man
You are aware that in quite a lot of the world , we don’t arm our citizens?
"They say that God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal."
What a useless " conversation"
13:32 “You used the term excuse just there, so she’s having to excuse herself in her response to you”
It all hinges on this, of seeing power play instead of epistemic rigour. Julie is interpreting the word ‘excuse’ as being the woman excusing herself to Peter in a power play, rather than the woman’s attempt to wriggle out of the exposed bs gap between claiming 9/10 feeling of danger and not being prepared for it in any way. You can’t even say that the woman in question is just being extremely irresponsible because a feeling of 9/10 danger would trigger her fight/flight system and override her decision-making. I could go on with analogies about the state of emergency you’d see with a 9/10 threat level, but I think the absurd exaggeration is clear
Julie, if you see this: I think you had a great point that should be further delved into about the socialization of women, and the various kinds of situations they might find themselves in. But, you blatantly and directly said you would not trust data at 34:04 . That makes me a sad panda. :( I desperately want to agree with you. But you seem to be missing the point that this is a multifaceted, complex web of phenomena, and that multiple solution vectors will necessarily need to exist to equally combat it - self-defense, I believe, is one such vector. SA laws, social and cultural systems, etc etc can only do so much!
Julie's argument seems to be 100% emotional: She was upset that Peter's question weakened Kara Dansky's position.
The truth is that the modern world is a dangerous place...and yes, within civilization, it's mostly due to male violence (and that's true for everyone...both male and female), but the phenomenon responsible (testosterone--male strength/quickness, intelligence, strong sexual drive, etc.) that she complains about being so dangerous to women is also what protected women (and children) for millions of years. Yes, it has a dark side, but the good side is why we're all here.
The feminist argument seems to be, "Because some men can't control themselves, it's all men's fault!" Julie/Kara can't imagine "moving through the world" as a man with all the associated biological urges (that 95% keep under control), societal pressures, etc. then have to listen to feminists blaming THEM for some men being violent.
We should just nicely ask all bad people to stop doing bad. Duh.
Yeah! Make crime illegal! No crimes will be committed then!
Peter, Kara and this interviewee--as probable quintessential “slow learner Democrats or at least leftists”--are no doubt unfamiliar with this piece of wisdom from Clint Smith: “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.” Of course…to each their own 🤷♂️😉
I feel she's wrong, she doesn't understand my feelings.... lel. You can't understand a woman's feelings as a man. What do you mean? I feel.... I know, but in objective terms what do you mean? I feel...
I have to say Peter, I agree with her logic. I was put off by your original question regarding a prior interview. I think you are coming from a good place and I love your interviews, but this was a one off for you in my opinion. I'm glad you had a chance to explain yourself more however.
Peter: Why are those two things mutually exclusive?
Feminist: I can't comprehend that question.
🤦♂
If Bindel wants to walk her dog when she expects London rainfall, does she take a raincoat? Or an umbrella, perhaps? Or does she expect society to teach rain how not to get her wet?
I have a feeling she has never been wet in her life. Nothing but sand, dust, and cobwebs.
You’re really using those examples to buoy up your argument of what ? That if women and girls just refrained from making idiotic decisions , they’d completely avoid being a victim ?
If I *choose* not to wear my raincoat , then MVAWG will never end … Am I doing that man-thinking right ?
Great point. Problem with that one is it seems only she can use an analogy to express / explain her point & she holds Peter to a " in the strictest sense" standard.
@@stevemahoney1733
Yes. While analogies can be useful for clarifying, they can also be used to obfuscate.
Raging misandrist who just hates men. She is so glib and talks about men the same way racists talk about blacks
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where John says to Homer: "Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you'd be set."
I no longer care unless I want to care. I am only in the defense game if I feel like it. That's a sensible call since I'm not twenty-five anymore. But it's also a sensible call because why should I bother sticking up for someone who despises me? It's a transactional world, right, or so I've been told by angry feminists. I've also been informed by Captain Marvel and Doctor Who that I am redundant. Alright then, girl bosses.
If you see someone getting victimized, step up. It’s not a transaction. It’s the golden rule.
@@MarciaMatthews Did I not just say that I have opted out?
Her argument is.... weird. If I was attacked, and was afraid of being violated or killed, the last thing in my mind would be "if I kill my attacker I may go to jail." Yes, fine, self defense can be criminalized, but that's no different for men.
That along with constantly straw manning his argument, it's a bit hard to take her seriously.
Yeah that was weird, as if men don't get prosecuted for self defense all the time.
If anything, a woman would be shown a hell of a lot more leniency by the police and courts for self defense than a man would be. Heck, try even getting the police to believe a man was the victim of domestic violence.
Women are most vulnerable to GBV in their homes where they are supposed to be the most safe. Intimate Partner Violence is the most common form of GBV statistically. Peter I do think you need to wake up about this. You seem to think GBV is irregular or abnormal. It is men who need to change their behaviour, not women!! It is the acceptability of violence against women that is unacceptable.