Peter, you seem like a good guy who is interesting, and you have platformed women who have been 'cancelled', and your espistemology stuff is great. But, as a man who has been assaulted in a number of ways by men, and who can defend himself, you're just wrong here. In the UK we cannot legally carry any kind of self-defence equipment or thing we intend to use as a weapon. Women who are older, or disabled, cannot become black belts in anything. and, even if both of those things were not true, then why should women spend half their lives to defend themselves against terrible men, when that defence will likely not work, and may well make the situation much, much worse?
Sounds like you are talking about yourself. I’ve noticed that when someone’s answer is unpleasing to you, you do your “Help me understand” Poundshop Louis Theroux wrinkled brow schtick.
Peter, I really appreciate that you had her on, especially after your comments about Dansky and RF's in your last interview. This was really riveting...wish it was longer. You should have Dansky back on to see if you can tie any loose ends on this. The impression I got from that interview with Dansky was that you were implying her claims about MV AW risks were hyperbole and overblown, and you were using self defense as a way of suggesting it was BS, but now you're caught in a discussion about the feasibility of self defense and now you're left having to position every counter argument to it as if it's ideologically driven when it's not. Ladies like Dansky are talking about bare minimum basic public measures that are a macro level approach to mitigating risks, and your suggestion is more individualist. And that is fine, wonderful even...up until you framed it as contrary or oppositional to what Dansky is doing.
That's not how I see it. I think you made a conceptual mistake and are now having a hard time working out what it is. I heard your desire to understand and at the same it's clear that it will take you a while because most people cannot switch perspectives at the push of a button. From what I gather you had planned to bring on a woman with a black belt to debate Julie! The question for women isn't self defense vs going outside unarmed or untrained. Women, like men, navigate a world in which men are both potential friend and potential foe. Unlike most men, women are targeted sexually, that is a physical and an emotional threat. Any man could potentially present such a danger. Close men and unknown men. Women prefer to not let that rise to consciousness too much in order to manage their lives. Men also could be targeted physically and sexually by other men, but our culture keeps that in check. Men keep one another in check. Men do not keep men in check who molest women, not to the same degree at any rate, or assaults on women would stop. Men usually feel safe around women. Ever wondered why that is? Women don't have the opposite effect when alone with men, quite to the contrary. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
It's interesting, and I assume this is the TH-cam algorithm or whatever, but every time I post pointing out that Dansky, a known radical feminist, would be charged with a hate crime if she pepper sprayed a trans identified man in a woman's bathroom, even if she feared for her life, the post disappears.
If you are assaulted in a restroom in the US you have every right to defend yourself. Pepper spray is legal in our state. It's not a hate crime to defend yourself.
@@clariceonline9757 People are unjustly charged with crimes all of the time. Many women, and presumably men, are in prison for defending themselves. This is a very politically charged matter, lots of variables in the "who's the real victim here" equation.
@@z4zillah556 As someone who's been on the receiving end... no prison time, but lots of legal red tape including anger management, pre-trial probation, etc... simply for getting the upper hand on an attacker who's friends called the police (thus was in the right)... I can totally confirm. You also hear lots of stories from those trapped in the system about their own cases, many of which leave you with an entirely different understanding of what "self defense" actually is.
If a trans person attacked Dansky in a bathroom and she maced him she would not be charged with a hate crime .. it also depends on witnesses available of course
Peter, I am a black belt, studying and training for over two decades now. I can admit that 90% of men will still likely beat me in combat. I also conceal carry everywhere I go. I still feel unsafe in spaces where I will be vulnerable and unclothed if any man can have access to me while in that state, most especially in public.
There is a difference between feeling unsafe in some situations, which incidentally men routinely do also (it is hilarious to me that feninists seem to think men wander about in a state of total oblivion without a care in the world - a complete inversion of reality), and pretending to be in a state of mortal danger all the time. The reality is that women are generally safer than men in virtually every society on earth. In the west, men are twice as likely to be attacked, way more than twice as likely to be killed, more likely to be mugged etc. etc. and nobody gives a shit. Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted and stalked, I think the only two crimes they are the majority victims. Our focus remains entirely on women and women's safety. None of this is to say that we shouldn't care about women's safety, of course we should, and most normal people do. Men should not ever be in women changing rooms for example. What we shouldn't do is exaggerate the dangers and waste time on man-hating clowns like Bindel.
I was so glad for this discussion as I was so mad after the Kara Dansky interview. Julie said everything I wanted to say BUT was able to back it up with a mass of experience also. I will always be hyper vigilant as a lone female walker and this has stood me in good stead. Thank you Peter for being brave to face Julie. And as always Thank You Julie. 🇬🇧❤️
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
35:21 When Kara replied that she was "lazy" that was NOT in response to carrying pepper spray. (Go, rewatch it.) It was in response to you badgering her about self-defence - how many self-defence lessons had she taken, of what kind, when. It was an aggressive line of personal questioning that would have never yielded a satisfactory response for you because you had your mind made up about what should be done (as you still do). You were forcing her into a corner. And so, she did what most women do when facing male aggression: She de-escalated it by telling you something to make you back off. Do I think for a moment that Kara is lazy? No. She wanted you to stop your aggressive pursuit, so she gave you a weak "win".
It's because it was such a stupid fucking question it caught her off guard and she didn't know how to answer. We've all been there with these stupid fucking men blaming us for what they do.
So women are cowards who won't stand up for their opinions seems to be your take. Thankfully many women aren't and don't trade in perpetual victimhood. Boghossian's point was and still is valid. She didn't really feel as much threat as she was saying she did. As the old saying goes, don't pay attention to what people say, pay attention to what they do, if you want to know what they really think.
Trying to regain our single sex spaces IS our way of mitigating some of the danger women face when out in public. That is the entire point which seems to get lost. If male violence is as rare as a herd of marauding elephants, we never would have needed the spaces to begin with, not to mention that we need to have privacy and dignity when we have a menstrual cycle. I understand that men do not get this, but I ask with all my heart that you at least try to.
@@ClintByrne I understand that, but him arguing we must not truly think there is a threat if we're not all going to get black belts undermines women's concerns and even questions if we need those single spaces at all if we're exaggerating the threat. The men calling themselves women have insisted upon using female spaces by claiming they are at risk of male violence. If Peter doubts the threat is as bad as women say, then it equally means the threat is not as bad as "trans women" aka men say, so there is no need for them use female spaces at all, we can tell them to go get a black belt if they are truly scared, and stay out of female spaces.
@@susiegluxman9041 that's entirely not it. Everyone getting blackbelts wouldn't stop the problem. Because even a blackbelt won't save you from Ray Rice but it can help mitigate the damage you take, or other steps and training can. If you honestly believe it's a problem you will face, you would take those steps, and petition to fix the problem for others so hopefully you don't have to use your training. This is also just for violence by a stranger.
Allowing men in women’s sports and bathrooms is insane. Women and men need separate spaces. Separate gyms, separate bathrooms, etc. sororities should not allow men pretending they’re women and yet they do. Women overwhelmingly support transgenderism compared to men.
@@susiegluxman9041Jesus many of you are completely missing Peters point .. he is simply making the comment that IF women truly feel at constant of violence from men that they would probably take a little time to better defend themselves in said situations whether that’s carrying mace, proper spray or a gun or taking a few self defense classes . His point makes perfect sense and he isn’t saying that a few self defense classes will help any woman defeat all male attackers . Dansky looked very bad when trying to defend her point And most men are for separate bathrooms ..
Peter, I thoroughly enjoy your podcasts & the fact you take the time to explore different perspectives. Im a woman & how I understand this (as someone who has been subjected to all of the things Bindel talks about). In the ‘heat of the moment’, my instinct is not ‘to fight’, it’s to ‘fawn’ or ‘flight’. These are my ‘go to’ defence mechanisms. I think this is probably true of most women. You immediately & instinctively understand you’re on the back foot against a male perpetrator. Fight response is likely to fail due to the very obvious biological differences. Appeasing, de-escalating or simply fleeing are far more effective and instinctive strategies for women.
The thing Peter is missing is that he is discounting every threat response that isn’t “fight back.” Julie tried to explain to him that women are constantly doing things to protect themselves like talk down aggressive men to buy themselves time to get help or leave. These are legitimate strategies that we already know and understand from psychology studies on threat and trauma. Flight and fawn are much more common ways that women deal with threats from men because let’s be honest, the vast majority of time women will not win a fight against a man. The data also shows that tools for fighting like guns and pepper spray often get turned on women when trying to defend or fight against men, like Julie pointed out.
Pepper spray is a worse than pointless investment. The person dissuaded by pepper spray is not a driven person. Guns work but require training and practice to stay proficient enough that getting taken advantage of is greatly diminished. Jiu Jitsu, Wrestling and Judo can be useful but start from the possible worst place for a women to be, at contact distance. Rather than focus on the 'fight back' thinking, consider Peter repeating back 9/10 is the perceived danger level and the response is so anemic. 9/10 danger level is kitted out with the boys running neighborhood watch checkpoints. 9/10 is not, 'well I just try to downplay encounters and avoid situations where bad things could happen'. The hyperbolic scale is naked as can be. Understand that 10/10 is at least active war zone levels of danger and conflict.
@@kerwynpk I have. For fun even. Unless you can get your hands on some CS gas(even then it better be as concentrated as possible), pepper spray and bear mace are laughable. I would rather carry around a small powder based fire extinguisher as that legitimately is a choking and aspiration hazard. Adding to the pointlessness of pepper spray, I've watch 2 women accidentally spray themselves while digging in a purse. Both have never carried pepper spray again because of how nothing the experience turned out to be.
@@kerwynpk It isn't a rambo thing. Expose yourself when you get a chance. Unless you get your hands on some CS gas the effect is a medium annoyance. Discount my experience and instead consider the two women I mentioned who sprayed themselves on accident and were not impressed. Only bother to engage because people lean on pepper spray as some option for self defense that doesn't just piss off a determined attacker.
Yeah . Peter she isn’t wrong. It’s never a fair fight. It’s best avoid as many situations as possible which many women can’t do and also… we want to have a life.
@@MustardSkaven When women shoot men they go to prison. When women pull guns on men, the gun gets taken away from them and used on them. Men like you are getting off on this bullshit take as just another form of your sadism against women.
My main difficulty with Peter‘s continued hammering of and cluelessness about this issue is that regardless of how many individual protections each one woman employs, the issue is actually what the hell is going to change in society? Kara, Julie, and so many others of us are trying to scream from the rooftops that men are not women, that men dressed up as women in locker rooms or on women’s sports teams or in women’s prisons are not safe for women. Sure, maybe if every woman or girl in each of those situations were fully armored, actual bodily harm would not occur, but as Julie is trying to say, that’s a hell of a lot of vigilance put on us every single minute of every single day, but more inherently, why should half of the human race change our daily routines to ward off the possible violence from the other half of the human race? And, by the way, this is part of the same slippery slope for all of the young girls now not wanting to be women and all of the young effeminate boys not wanting to be gay men and being offered ways to change their bodies instead of having society change to be more safe for and accepting of vulnerable women, feminine men, homosexual orientation, etc.
Most of us guys don’t want Men in women’s changing rooms either or on women’s sports teams or changing rooms . I’m more surprised that this is even a thing in 2024 Peter isn’t clueless and neither is Julie - they are just seeing past each others point.
Thank you for your response to my response. And I really appreciate your words. I love men. I’m married to a man. I have a son. I think we’re talking about a relatively small number of men who want to force themselves on women and into women’s spaces. And I shouldn’t have said that Peter is clueless. I have really appreciated his voice in all of this madness. But I do think there’s something he is really missing or just not able to understand or empathize with as he repeatedly hammers at the same point about how women should just get self protection and that it’s not mutually exclusive with also changing society. That point is certainly correct, but it does raise the hackles of every woman who has been told just to fight back or just to be quiet or just to carry pepper spray or just not to go out at night, etc.. It would have felt completely different if after about the fifth time of “help me understand,” he said something like, “listen, I wish you didn’t have to think about protecting yourself in those ways even though I think you should, but now let’s keep talking about what we are all doing to actually try to change things.”
"Why should we have to _____ ?" Sure, you can argue you _shouldn't_ have to. But in reality, that doesn't mean anything. We can play this game all day long: I _shouldn't_ have to look both ways before I cross the street, because all cars and drivers should respect me wanting to walk around this city without having to take responsibility for my own pedestrian safety!
I'm male but also pretty nervous walking around, esp around drunk people/at night. Adding a sexual component and average body strength difference to this makes it easy to see why women might be hypervigilant.
Thank you. My husband was beaten by his dad as a child, and witnessed his mother being beat, so he totally understands what it's like to be in a weaker position. Peter suffers a lack of empathy and imagination, and just can't seem to get it. I appreciate him and men like you that understand our fears and concerns.
@@pierogi3112 It is stupid to think that the woman is in the weaker position. If you are a man and your wife is abusing you and the nth time you strike back once then your life is over. The police will arrest you, not the wife, your social circle will ostracize you, not your wife, and so on. Sure, women are physically inferior, but they have far more power.
@@pierogi3112 What exactly is he not getting? He never denies a weaker position justifies fear. He is questioning why if that fear is there, why is the person not taking actions to decrease the risk?
@@MustardSkaven Carrying weapons and learning self defense are not risk reducing strategies. Women are physically weaker the chances of overpowering a man in a fight are close to nil. The weapon would just as likely be taken away and used against them. Women do take risk reducing strategies by not travelling alone after certain times at night or by avoiding certain areas or by crossing the road etc. etc.
Oh gosh, Julie is so right about the “Superwoman” thing. I think this is a byproduct of women appearing in all these action movies like badass heroes. Why do I have to learn martial arts to walk on the street?? I have a career and a 2nd grader and laundry to do! Why am I going to dedicate months of my life to learning a skill I may never be in a position to effectively use? I’m 5’5 and petite, if a big burly dude twice my size comes at me, I doubt I’m going to Bruce Lee myself out of the situation. And if I pull out a weapon, I instantly escalate a situation, potentially putting myself in more danger, especially in a secluded area. I really do like Peter and I’m not radical feminist but this is so frustrating to listen to.
You are not allowed to carry ANYTHING in the UK which you intend to use as a weapon Peter. I am a man who has been mugged a lot, but even I cannot relate to how a woman has to beware of men at all times.
You know that statistically, the most common victims of male street violence is OTHER MEN, right? That's not to downplay the fact that women/girls are especially vulnerable; That (1) despite being less likely to be victims of violence, overall, women are more likely to be targets of SEXUAL violence, which is uniquely invasive and personal. And (2) that a man, attacked by another man, is more likely to be able to defend himself; It's not as inherently unbalanced as a man attacking a woman. But it seems Bindel's main goal (not unlike many trans activists, ionically) is in being a "victim", and in MAINTAINING the (real or percieved) "victimhood" of women, just like trans activists want to MAXIMIZE the perception of "transphobia", because they NEED trans people to be seen as "victims"). She exclusively stresses the idea that women can't and SHOULDN'T do anything to avoid male violence; Men shouldn't be violent towards women, therefore MEN need to change (and not be violent to women), and women have no role to play, beyond telling men to not be violent to women. And of course, male violence against women is unacceptable, and immoral. ALL violent crime is unacceptable, but I don't think it's unreasonable, that there's far more social stigma against a man who's violent to a women, than for a man who gets in a fight (or even attacks, unprovoked) with another man. But the fact is, WE KNOW (at least to SOME extent) why males are more violent than females, and why violent males do more harm than (far rarer) violent females... And we know it's a factor that WON'T EVER change, unless basic human biology changes... Testosterone has been proven to have a causal link with aggression and violence, as well as related tendencies, like risk-taking. Testosterone is also why males are physically stronger than females; It's the reason WHY a man attacking a man is seen as "less immoral" than a man attacking a woman. This doesn't excuse male violence; We ALREADY punish male violence, and especially male violence against women, and of course we should keep doing that; Innate biological tendency or not, we still hold individuals responsible for their own behaviour, as we should... But it DOES mean that, while we should never EXCUSE male violence against women, the biological factors (namely tesosterone) means that common sense says that men WILL ALWAYS be more violent, and physically stronger than women; It's unreasonable to expect that there will EVER be a time when domestic violence stats are equal, between the sexes. Really, this is kinda true of ALL crime; We know that there will ALWAYS be theft; That doesn't excuse theft. We still punish theft, and see theft as immoral and socially unacceptable. As we should... But anyone who said "As a non-theif, I have no responsibility to lock my car or not leave the keys inthe ignition, coz it's THE THEIVES' RESPONSIBILITY to stop stealing stuff!!" would be considered a complete idiot... But THIS IS THE ARGUMENT BINDEL MAKES, about male violence... Bindel DOESN'T WANT to minimise instances of male violence against women; She just wants to LEVERAGE that violence, for her own ideological advantage, and staturs Any EFFECTIVE, REAL-WORLD strategy to minimise male violence against women, would need to (1) accept that this issue is objectively NOT exclusively about "social conditioning" and our "evil patriarchal society|"; It's (at least in part) about INNATE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERNCES BETWEEN THE SEXES. Which means that scolding men, saying "stop being an evil misogynist" is NEVER going to solve the issue. And (2) accept that men and women (while desrving equal rights and equal oportunities) will NEVER BE BEHAVIOURALLY IDENTICAL. And (3) like dealing with theft, or any other crime, (while it's true that the criminal is 100% responsible for their own actions, and should be punished) it's just impractical and unreasonable in the real world, to say "I have no responsibilty to try to avoid becoming a victim of crime, because it's THE CRIMINAL who should stop being a criminal!!" ESPECIALLY with this unique dynamic, of a crime involving two different biological groups, with innate behavioural differences. But (again, like trans activists) Bindel will never do this, because minimizing real-world male violence against women is directly AGAINST HER BEST INTERESTS; This is the issue with left-wing "victim" narratives, as a whole; It means the activists, who are the voice of these issues (which often have a core of legitimacy) are incentivized to NOT stop the problem; In fact, they are incentivised MAXIMIZE the problem (or it's perception, at least), and to make sure the issue ISN'T solved, at least for the activist's working life.
But dude, the point is to be aware and take precautions. Women used to talk about things like keys between your fingers, parking in well lit areas, someone walking you to your car, self-defense classes. Nowadays the young women are really stupid and expect the outside world to change. It is a very privileged, silly rich girl's stance. Compare this to anywhere else in the world where women face violence and threat on a way more elevated level. I don't take offense if a man makes sure I am taking precautions. It isn't about them not understanding danger... it is because men understand danger that they suggest these things..
So true.... I gave a hearty shove to several men when I was a young woman and it did work.. BUT it could have escalated very quickly and I would have had no chance against the upper body strength of a man.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st There's no realistic chance those laws would change. The media reaction if anyone proposed it would mean it would never get through parliament.
My husband loved scaring me when we first started dating. He thought it was hilarious that I jumped and screamed whenever I didn’t hear him coming behind me. After a year or so I finally explained to him that my response was because home was the only place I ever felt safe and let my guard down. I’ve been sexually assaulted on the street and in the metro more times than I can count. I wish I said that I had that movie moment every time, the moment where I bravely call out my attacker or punch him in the face. But the reality is that I often froze or acted like it wasn’t happening, because any man willing to grasp my butt on a crowded metro is someone who could be willing to escalate to violence. You never know if the people around you will support you, or if they’re in cahoots, especially in the city. I live in Mexico City. Our metros come with female-only cabins. The statistic written on our trains in vinyl letters that 9 in 10 (let that sink in) women have been violated on a metro. I’ve only taken the men’s cabins around a dozen times and it’s happened to me, while I was with my small child and being quite vigilant. I am always scared when I take a walk. Not some paranoid, anxious fear. Just a low-level undercurrent of wariness, like a prey animal on the Serengeti. I know that everything will likely be fine. I also know that anything could happen, and has happened. There is a beautiful canal near my home, it’s a far more scenic route than the one I usually take to get to the farmer’s market. I can’t walk it without my husband because it’s too remote. There are no neighbors, tall grasses. The only time I walked it I saw a man with a machete hacking grasses. Likely benign, but I realized how dangerous it was, particularly when he stopped hacking to silently stare at me as I walked by.
I have the same startle-reflex but sometimes I lash out as well, it's horrible and also embarrassing to explain to husband and kids who are just playing and joking that I can't be part of those games, that I cannot control it *at all* - yes, it's only at home where I lock the doors and let my guard down so thank you for sharing your story and illuminating something that I've tried to understand for decades.
I live in the UK and what you said about your experience on the metro in your first paragraph, is a replica of mine on the London tube and streets over many years. I wonder just how many women/girls worldwide have suffered these awful sexual assaults, would be interesting to know....
And I am also curious to know, in the "all women learn martial arts to protect themselves" proposition, is it the assumption that no men will also learn martial arts? Doesn't this lead to the "if a woman fails to physically dominate a trans identified man in women's sport it is simply because she hasn't tried hard enough" argument?
Most men don't train martial arts. Trans identified men that participate in sports train in and for a sport. A random male picked off the street will likely lose against an elite sports woman.
It's more about how both women and men should learn and utilize safety precautions, weapons, anything, to level the playing field, whether it's protective gear in sports, or fight or flight methods in potentially violent situations.
@@dilloneliassen9622There is no leveling the playing field though. Male bodies are typically bigger, stronger and lacking the anatomical weaknesses of female bodies. There is nothing that women and girls can do to overcome this. They can make themselves more difficult to dominate, but other than by not existing, there is nothing that they can do to render themselves impossible for the average man to dominate.
Saying self defence is the answer the male violence is just so stupid and ill -informed. If you are a petit woman against a much bigger guy, you just have no chance, surely that is obvious. Bang on, Julie!
So what is the answer then? Are you so delusional you think we can remove bad people from society? We already have laws against attacks. We have the threat of imprisonment and even death. Yet people still do attacks. So tell us the answer, I can't wait.
Yes, I share Bindel's impatience here. I don't see how universally arming women is going to stop most of the violence women face--she's going to shoot her husband? Her father? I don't know why Boghossian is stuck on this, but I advise him to move on.
@@TrackerNeilTrue. I was in an abusive marriage and "prided" myself on being able to "hit back". But, I Always, Always hit/slapped with minimal force. I didn't want to hurt him, I just wanted to fight back.
I agree with Julie. I was offended by the way he badgered Kara and acting like she hasn't done more than most to combat male violence. It's not an individual solution. It impacts all women! So one woman arming herself is not the solution.
But he had a good point. Young women in Western countries can be silly and very privileged in how they maneuver danger and violence. We need street smarts, not clinging to Utopian ideals and expecting the outside world to change for us. While some dumb young women are crying that their nipples should be allowed to be out without consequences smarter women in the world have to deal with real violence and threat, not the nonsense of silly girls.
One woman arming herself isn't gonna fix the problem of male violence. But it can prevent her from becoming a statistic. I don't know if you ever listened to old radio shows like Love Lines, with Dr Drew. But it was quite common that risk avoidance along with always using protection was massively more effective than relying on other people to guarantee your safety. This lady talking about an issue that is primarily Safety for women, needs to hit all the notes of what promotes safety. It's like she's an ER authority, but doesn't advocate for workers in a risky environment to follow OSHA approved policies.
It’s pretty absurd to be offended over the way Peter spoke to Kara. He was trying to dig down to understand where the level of confidence came from in her belief that women were subject to a 9 out of 10 danger of harm from men. If women were actually in that much danger, or even perceived themselves to be, they wouldn’t leave the house, women would never engage with men, society would not function. So Peter was trying to understand how Kara believed this so strongly, despite the abundant evidence of this not being the case being so obvious. So Peter was trying to find the bedrock of that strongly held belief about women being in immense danger from men all of the time, without triggering the defences that often pop up when a strong belief is being challenged or criticised. If you watch his spectrum street epistemology videos that is often what his aim is: to understand what people believe, why they believe it, and how people end up feeling so confident in beliefs that they have little to no basis for beyond the belief itself.
Really? She seems DESPERATE to avoid saying "it was Muslim men", in regards to the gr00ming gangs. Seems like THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of "forthright". She's doing exactly what trans activists do; She has a certain, pre-decided narrative (with pre-chosen "villain" and "victim" groups), and will stress whatever evidence supports that narrative, and gloss over far stronger evidence, if it DOESN'T support her narrative. I agree with a lot of what she says, in criticism of "gender" ideology... But virtually everything EXCEPT that one topic, she seems like she's basically the same as the generic "woke" lefty on Twitter, for the most part.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 I can't answer for her, but my guess would be that it isn't at all clear that their Muslimness was relevant to what they did. If the reason was cultural then suggesting their Muslimness was somehow sufficient for their crime is far too narrow a lens. It also supports the idea that this sort of crime is something that only certain demographics of men indulge in, which is far from true.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
@@baconsarny-geddon8298ppl like Bindel are fantastic at mental gymnastics
Forthright? Bindel knows exactly what demographic is most likely to assault women in city streets yet she wouldn’t come out and say it. I find it truly baffling that we can’t state basic truths .. like Peter said we have to start saying the truth out loud!
@@onepartyroule oh Jesus no that’s not why. The only demographic that are sexually assaulting women in groups on a somewhat consistent basis are Muslim men. No one is saying this makes all Muslims bad but simply that it is a fact that one group is responsible for this type of crime. Same goes for the men punching women on American streets - they are black men in 95% of cases . Julie loves to generalize men but doesn’t go further in terms of race or ethnicity because she fears being called racist.
Muslim society certainly does make men violent, but western society? No. She’s got this all wrong, violent men are not “socialized” to be so, if it were a result of dominant western culture than violent men wouldn’t be a minority, they’d be a majority… obviously. So here’s a tip for her and the rest of the people trying to destroy western culture, STOP DOING THAT DUMBASSES. Let’s just cut the shit, this woman hates men and boys and wants to separate humanity by sex because fundamentally she DOES believe the problem is innate to boys and men. She believes that men and boys have something to gain from being violent, SHE IS WRONG, and her insane position is just going to further exacerbate the ACTUAL problem: fatherless disenfranchised men who no one ever gave a shit about raising to be a self-respecting man rather than pusillanimous and self-loathing “male allies” (as Julie would have all boys raised).
Replace "woman" with "elderly, frail, handicapped, weak, small, etc." in the self-defense argument. It's naive to think that bad people with bad intentions can ever be erased. It's a two-sided effort. Potential victims need to be proactive and bad people need to be punished. It's not an either/or proposition.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7
Then do that. Punish those w/those bad intentions. Don't classify all men as those ppl. Or all women as victims w/o agency.
Women ARE proactive. Martial arts is simply not the best answer or only possible measure. Do you think women generally have the time and resources to constantly train in martial arts? Some do, some don't. Some aren't physically capable at all. We need general measures like the ones Kara and Julie work for.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
@@estellahavisham156 what are some of these 'general measures' I wonder?
Do you wonder? Or are you being snide? Julie explained some of them. For the most part, we try to avoid situations where we'll be at risk to the extent we can. I'm sure you're ACTUALLY already aware of this, but you don't understand that it's risk mitigation. Avoiding walking alone at night? Fighting for any space where we remove clothing to be single sex? Not leaving drinks unattended? Lots of things you already know but suddenly decided to play dumb about, no doubt. Those of us who can, will take more aggressive measures. Like learning combat skills. This is something I've done, not something every woman can do. This is something we contend with constantly and it's impossibly stupid of you to assume it just hasn't occurred to us to try to mitigate our risks because we're not all spending all of our free time and money on jujitsu lessons. 🙄
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@estellahavisham156 being snide wasn't veiled. These measures are things everyone considers, make and female. My issue with Bindel and her ilk is she's just demonstrably wrong. Her issues w/men as a class are delusional and she uses shame as a cudgel in order push a false narrative. Her words: we live in a culture of misogyny where men have permission...etc,etc Gtfoh.
Peter’s whole position is that it’s women’s responsibility to sort this out, not men. A lot of abuse and harassment takes place in the workplace where men are in positions of authority. I have worked in places where unwanted physical attention by senior men is endemic. How do we protect ourselves again them then Peter, when we have to earn our living? Don’t say change your job because why should we have to?
I did martial arts classes with men and we sparred regularly and I am under no illusion that the men were very gentle with the women in the class to help us to learn techniques, and if they ever turned those same techniques back on us in anger it would be virtually pointless for us to know them, speed and upper body strength in men is so much more than for the average woman. Elite practitioners might have more of a chance, but as Julie said and I commented myself on the Kara Dansky piece, feminists campaign for the safety of all women, not just those young and strong enough to put up a fight. Another of the methods that women (all people!) use and not mentioned by Julie, is simply not being a part of society at all, staying at home in a secure situation when we might prefer to go out but feel vulnerable. This is something that everyone needs to be aware of and why the police are there, to not let society fall under the rule of the young, strong, erratic and aggressive to the detriment of all. And we need to make sure the police don't fall into those categories themselves, or we are lost, saying this after incidents of police themselves being the attackers and murderers of women here in the UK.
Do you agree with Kara that current western societies should be ranked 9 out of 10 on a scale of danger for women? I think Peter is being very clumsy in the way he talks about it but I was pretty astounded that she would say something like that.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st 9 out 10 is ridiculous. When something like that gets said by someone it immediately says to me 1) they're not looking at the stats properly 2) they're probably in a bubble 3) they probably hold extremist view about the opposite sex
Some of the strategies... Out in public - avoiding eye contact to not garner unwanted attention - putting your hair up to stop it from being pulled easily - condensing all shopping bags into one bag so not holding too much on your way home - staying alert on trains, subways at night.. not playing on phone or listening to music - scanning your surroundings aware of who is on the train or subway how old they are, sex they are, what behaviours they are exhibiting - not drinking as much.. not drinking at all.. watching drinks being made.. not accepting drinks from anyone - being aware of what you are wearing, tucking away jewellery, lanyards anything easy to grab - wearing more comfortable shoes easy to run/walk in -crossing the road when there is a lone man or groups of men walking towards you - taking the long route home to avoid being followed home.. or if it is safer/ brighter more lit more ppl etc.
Yep among many things living in a world shared with men. This is not to say all men but instincts in your own community and travels of knowing men are more physically advantaged and are fully capable is simply the reality. In 2020, even when the community I lived in was pretty bare. I had an encounter with a teen boy who followed me on his bike for my entire route through the neighborhood I live in. I did not notice him for lord knows how long because I could not hear him. I had headphones in. I stopped when I heard him in between songs. So I paused it on my phone and run kept running but with no music to see what he was up to. After a few more min and a few more turns The idea of him "just being a teen" left me because he was still large enough to overpower me if it came to that. Few more odd turns and I slow down. He slows down. At this point I shouted "where are u headed?" And he then turned round on his bike back the other way. I run without headphones and music till this day. I haven't seen the kid in the community since. But I am also aware now that "routing" is a thing. Figuring a woman's routine is the first step for abduction. To Peter, we don't mean to be this paranoid. But if say human is a kingdom. Men are apex preditors and women come 2nd to that. So yes the same way animals male or female are smaller and often hunted or could be. We as women keep head on a swivel and also... by way of the list above.... we do this list in silent. Once more making ourselves small. Btw So let us take those steps. If it offends men that women do this. Start checking the actions of each other. You have no clue what it feels like to subconsciously prepare for the worst in certain parts of your day
It's still fascinating to me that Peter doesn't see how women take precautions to defend themselves because it's not the precautions he would take. He would take precautions that a male can use not a female. Just because that's not the way you would do it doesn't mean it's not happening.
What precautions? It is significantly more likely that a man becomes a victim of violence. Almost all violence against women is committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Here is a silver bullet that will remove almost all violence in your life as a woman: don't do drugs, don't be around people using drugs, don't go to dangerous places.
A woman can't buy a firearm or pepper spray? What law says this? A 160lbs male is not safe from a 220lbs male any more than a woman is. But the 160lbs male seems to realise he needs to arm himself to protect himself. But somehow women can't do this? Why?
I’m an in shape 5’10” female with a black belt and am smart enough to know that size beats skill. I would never enter an empty public restroom alone or an empty parking lot. I’ve sparred the teen boys and they can easily hurt me.
OK, now that someone has established the actual biological reality, can we skip the part "it would be nice so nice if things were not what they are, maybe if I wear my pink glasses and wish for it very, very strong, it will become the truth" and go to actual solutions, like learn how/when to escape/choose a fight (a big part of martial arts) or wearing a gun? Because performativity of the language vs. fire arms is not really a cliffhanger.
Peter, I fear you don't understand that the UK doesn't allow pepper spray, guns, or knives for self-defense. Being hyper alert is extremely stressful and leads to unreasonable paranoid fear. When my tiny daughter left for university I taught her to use her elbows and knees and bite hard. I armed her with a personal alarm and key ring torch that could break someone's nose. She doesn't accept drinks from strangers. I've taught my sons to respect that women live in fear of attacks, its not fair for them to be seen this way, but its a reality we must acknowledge.
Applying Cooper's Colors does not require ''hyper alertness.' Everyone when in public should be in 'Yellow': “This is a relaxed state of general alertness, with no specific focal point. You are not looking for anything or anyone in particular; you simply have your head up and your eyes open. You are alert and aware of your surroundings. You are difficult to surprise, therefore, you are difficult to harm. You do not expect to be attacked today. You simply recognize the possibility.” maritimesafetyinnovationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Cooper-States-of-Awareness-Givens.pdf
Wow, Julie doesn't take any prisioners You should have her on again, its refreshing to have someone who has no 'filter' compared to other people who tip toe around a subject.
Is he disingenuous? 1. All weapons, including pepper spray are ullegal in the UK 2. Women take steps constantly to be aware of the males surrounding them and mitigate threats. How patronising of him to assume women just shrug and leave themselves defenceless. All the platitudes. 'Not all men' ffs
Peter needs to interview Maggie Oliver to better understand the grooming gangs in Northern England. The scandal is it is still happening in these communities
Whatever you do, dont carry deep heat spray to liberally spray in the eyes of aggressive men, because it acts like mace, and you wouldn't want to disable them while you get away.
I am a big fan Peter. If Kara Dansky were to pepper spray a trans identified man in the women's room, what effect do you think that act would have on her life?
The same if she had to pepper spray a woman in the women's room. I know it's rare but it is a possibility. Gender is irrelevant when you are forced to defend yourself.
@@RenThrayskIt is ABSOLUTELY relevant when you're a woman. It's FAR easier for women to defend themselves against other women than it is for them to defend themselves against men. How stupid of you not to see this. And you also completely missed the point that men who call themselves women are now a more protected class than real women. If Dansky pepper-sprayed one of these men in a female-only space, she would be lynched by the trans mob. That simply would not happen of she did it to an actual woman.
@@RenThraysk Not in Portland, Oregon it isn't. If a known radical feminist were to pepper spray a trans identified man here, especially in relation to protecting women's spaces, it would be tried as a hate crime. Period.
@@phasis At least assault. I believe in the preservation of single sex spaces, but I hope no one would pepper spray anyone in the bathroom unless there was an actual threat of violence.
You could have saved time by asking a selection of practising women martial artists who have one or more black belt how they think they would fare in a street fight. i doubt that many could go into full on combat mode and knock out a crazed man or disarm a man with a knife or gun or take full on punches to the body.. i'm not talking about trained female soldiers here but civilian woman. i had years of doing martial arts and the majority of women didn't stand a chance when fighting with strong men. i liked how julie asked you what you might be contributing in terms of educating men esp on domestic violence. The carrying of pepper spay is a good idea ..but it doesn't work if the wind is blowing toward you. It's not that reliable but good for a somebody to have esp when going to a car park . its a way that could buy somebody a little extra time to get away. so please don't think most women can train up and be like laura Croft or Emma peel . We need street crime to be more prosecuted.
there are security videos of women defending themselves available on youtube, go find them and watch them. most predators are not interested in a fight whatsoever
I’m a female black belt…I train with men and women, and know exactly how disadvantaged I am against a man, irl….. 18 year old boy dislocated my jaw, gave me concussion, and neck pain for months! He was holding back, and the technique was fairly tame, compared to other kicks.
Peter, your examples of threats are always one time issues. "The computer might blow up"? Are you serious? Maybe you should talk to some soldiers. I'm a veteran, but I'm a woman, so of course you probably won't hear it from me. Ask a male veteran to confirm. On deployment, we KNOW we may be hit by IDF AT ANY TIME. Do you suppose we refuse to sleep outside the bunker? Wear our body armor and helmet every moment? No. According to you, that means we don't REALLY think we could be hit by IDF at any time. Constant heightened vigilance isn't the same thing as a one time concern about freaking marauding elephants and exploding computers. You aren't conceptualizing that difference at all. We work for safety measures that reduce risj for all women. If we had to rely on martial arts, we'd have to train CONSTANTLY. We could do nothing else.
Re: The convo w/Kara D ~32:00 - Having watched Peter many times discuss women's self-defense options, I too have felt 'attacked' for not living up to his expectations/recommendations. It does indeed feel like victim blaming. While there are many common-sense steps women can and do take every day to reduce the chance of becoming a victim, not all are feasible all the time. Julie is correct: we cannot live all our lives walking on eggshells. We are well aware from our earliest days that men are to be feared (sometimes even those we love). To imply that our lack of physical preparedness, whether it be obtaining a black belt, carrying a gun or pepper spray or whatever, distracts from the facts that: 1) not everyone is capable of physically repelling an attacker despite those measures (ex: children, many elderly, infirm or disabled persons); and 2) the responsibility for violence against women is primarily a MALE PROBLEM. Overwhelmingly it is men who perpetrate violence - not only against women but against men too. *It seems an odd flex and completely ironic that in a conversation about male violence, the male interviewer would aggressively attempt to force the female interviewee into submissive compliance with his line of thinking (albeit in the plausibly deniable manner of Socratic questioning) thus placing her in a defensive position. QED anyone?
@@terfalicious No not in the least. My point was this: the aggression/compliance dynamic is invisible and goes unnamed for those for whom radical feminism is either an adversary, an annoyance or unimportant. This is a problem. In this "episode" we have a woman having to instruct a man (again) on the issues. He says he "wants to understand," over and over again. But do you get the sense that he does? Why don't men get their sh*t together themselves. That's rhetorical, we know why ;).
The thing is we hear constantly how women live in terror but that's not how they act in practice. Women don't advocate for laws or policies that would make it easier for good samaritans to keep them safe. women don't protest for cases where men get in legal trouble for trying to subdue other violent men in public, women don't do any of the things that you would expect them to do if they really believed all of these things. I go to a laundromat and there is always a woman there who then starts making faces at me as if I'm doing something wrong by being there, when they know full well that I'm not a problem or they would stay home and wash their laundry by hand and demand armed female guards be posted. What Peter is getting at is the total lack of interest in actually solving the problem and a lot of interest in just using it as a conversational weapon.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st Wow, do you really mean to blame victims of violence instead of the perps - yet again? As if no woman is defending Daniel Penny... No bias whatsoever in your reply 🤣 You sound deluded, friend, if you seriously think women should stay home, doing the laundry at home by hand, just to make you feel more comfortable? Maybe this anonymous, anecdotal woman can read you better than you read yourself.
It was funny watching Boghossian defend himself after Julie pulled the rug out from under him with the last question: 'Peter, what have you done to stop male violence.' Peter, lamely: 'I twice talked guys down from fighting women... Gorillas... I facilitate conversations.' If Peter were genuinely interested in understanding this topic he could have done the most basic research beforehand. What are the outcomes for female assault victims who fight back, trained vs untrained, armed vs unarmed? What is the evidence that studying self-defence is a better investment of their time than campaigning for better policing, laws and crime reduction. For all Peter's claims of enthusiasm for evidence-based decision-making, the guy seems to present no evidence at all.
What matter does it have. It's all men. White men have higher percentages to abuse children behind closed doors. Black men are higher likely to have the confidence to assult in public. Domestic abuse with women and men does not discriminate exclusively Muslim men Jewish men Men men men. As to why she states, race does not matter even if she said "this demographic" of men do. They all do when it comes to sexuall assult and abuse it happens in all houses all communities. Stop jerkin off to the idea that other race or creeds get called out is a form of a win. It's All Ls here when as women we enter our community at certain times head on a swivel because of....men. You lot are the apex pred. Sex rings and trafficking networks... majority men Studies on violence against women... majority men Sexual assault against women... majority men Rape against women... majority men. We as women don't filter out, oh he's a black man or oh he's a white man or oh he seems to follow this religion. Thus as a result I am more safe or less safe. No, simply men. If you are walking about at night. We are filtering out men. Full stop, the obsession to point the finger just to say, well it ain't my kind. Is not a win. Men Simply
This topic is becoming really frustrating. He assumes that we don't change our public behavior out of fear and conviction of the threat. We literally do 24/7 take steps to mitigate the threat of male violence. I do not go anywhere on my own. Im 34 years old female living in Dallas. I dont take myself out on my days off unless i have a male friend or significant other available to go out with me, whether thats shopping, lunch out, running errands or doing something fun like taking a walk or visiting a museum. I envy my male friends in my age group. They travel on their own intentionally for vacations and yet i cant go to a store or zoo on my own. As fas as self defense id love lessons in it. Im cool with carrying pepper spray or a pocketknife. I weigh 110 pounds and im 5'4. I really doubt i could fight someone off. Theres also my kind nature and i can't see myself going for the k1ll. I also fear jail. I fear public reaction (if i defended myself against a minority, which would be likely as i do sometimes have to travel on my own through places like downtown dallas. I loved your channel before some of these recent discussions where you seem to double down on how we need to wear protective vests and be trained in martial arts... its ridiculous. Im disappointed
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
You don’t go to the store alone? What type of area do you live in? Many women I know go shopping alone and while I’m sure they are cautious and more aware of their surroundings - they aren’t that hyper vigilant. I’ve seen the data on stranger >>stranger sexual assaults and they are quite rare. I mean, you are much more likely to get sexually assaulted by one of your male friends .
@@brianmeen2158 I definitely sometimes do, it really just depends. Dallas TX is not very safe though and I have to be hypervigilant. I've had people make s3xual comments to me, I've had people from outside my complex come into my complex and ask for s3x while I'm trying to relax at the pool. I've been called racist for not having cash to give people begging downtown. I've been followed (I noticed that I was and a police officer approached me to tell me he observed it also). Thankfully I have good friends who watch my back and run errands and whatnot. But still. I do very much envy my male friends the literal ability to go anywhere and even travel outside the us on their own. Theres definitely still dangers for them and of course they need to be hypervigilant as well because that's the world we live in. But its unfathomable for me to travel alone and thats the difference.
My ex husband pushed me to the ground outside of our childrens after school activity. When I got up I looked across the roas and there were 2 men standing there laughing at me.
Guess you should of learned karate according to Pete. Or pepper sprayed him and the two blokes watching could ring the cops and say you attacked him 🫣 I mean, what does he want? Us females to go around matching violence with violence and getting the short end of the stick nearly every poxy time? Ffs
@@gisellemagraibhaigh8342 Oh the police didn't care anyway. They're terrible here in NZ. I'm ringing them once a week due to domestic violence on the neighbors and they don't even turn up. I'm too old for Karate now😆 ill just stay away from men.
She asks Peter what he’s done to stop male violence. He did his whole dissertation in prisons working with, I’m assuming at times, violent male offenders. He published a book on passive communication and is an active epistemological missionary. He teaches people, men and women, how to have arguments without hurling abuses or coming to blows. Peter has every right to ask why a woman chooses not to arm herself if she claims she’s in a constant state of threat.
I believe I'm correct in saying that men are more likely to be the victim of violent assault than women. Not sexual assault, but violent assault. This narrative that some feminists parrot all day long that men walk around the world without a care is simply false. 99% of men would not walk around after dark with earphones in or with something that impedes your vision like a hood up. Most would avoid unlit parks, and those that went through would be HYPER vigilant. When men ask "why did you have your earphones in?" or "why didn't you avoid the park?". That's because they are the practical steps we take to remain safe, not something special we expect only you to do. We aren't expecting you to do anything we don't. I wish muggers, murderers, and rapists didn't exist. They do, so be smart.
@mattball3118 I completely agree with your statement about the prevalence of violent assault on men by men more than women. Statistically more boys and men are assaulted and murdered and we should be talking about that a lot more. What I would add though, looking at your scenarios, is that the boys and men that are assaulted are not held responsible that they didnt defend themselves enough, or what did they do to attract that attention in the first place, or that they held responsibility for taking the route through the park. Girls and women however are looked at as if they hold some King of responsibility for what happened to them. The additional element for women with the sexual violence, with rape, is the potential consequences of pregnancy and the moral dilemma and horror that comes with that. What do you do? Keep the child that is half yours or half from the person that hurt you, forced you? What about where abortion is illegal? How about keeping the child but remembering every time you look at them? How do you explain to everyone that you gave up your child without telling them you were raped and couldn't face it. What's the impact on your other relationships...with your husband/wife, or how do you tell your other children or parents about it? Being pregnant and giving birth and raising or giving up a child all have serious physical risks, illness and injury, even death, and enormous financial and living needs impacts. These are aspects of the results of violent and sexual crime that happen only to women. That does not negate the seriousness of violence to wards men, but there are a whole host of issues relating to violence and sexual violence to women that are different.
@@shelleyphilcox4743 Great points. I think what it ultimately comes down to is the tradeoff between freedom and safety. We have the right to go where we want, when we want, which means we have to take responsibility for our own safety. Rights and responsibilities are a package. If we accept that criminals exist, and that telling Ted Bundy that rape/murder are wrong would not have changed his behaviour, the only top down way to reduce risk is to curtail freedoms. Now, once we've caught Ted Bundy, we can curtail his freedoms. But until that happens, and just in case there are any other people out there like him, we have to be sensible. No amount of education will eliminate malevolent people who will cause harm to others. The best we can all do is to take sensible steps to protect ourselves, and hope for a rapid response from the emergency services if anything does happen. I think this whole disagreement between Peter and Julie stemmed from a miscalculation of the level of danger faced by women daily. 9/10 is clearly a gross overstatement, and all of Peter's questioning was downstream of that. If you really believed it was 9/10, you wouldn't leave the house. The civilians of Gaza are living in 9/10 danger, any regular member of society in the west makes light of their experiences if they claim to be going through something even remotely similar.
In Australia only Police can carry pepper spray. Even when women are locked in their own homes at night, they are not safe. Julie you were extremely temperate with this curiosity of a man.
"curiosity of a man." LOL, you mean an example of a rational and logical person? I guess that is quite curious when you're a person ruled by emotions above all else.
If police doesn't have the man power to handle rioting immigrants, maybe there are too many immigrants? Shoveling more into that situation is surely not going to help matters. 🤔
This is one example where it becomes really visible how there simply are differences between actually being a woman or a man versus hypothesising what it is like to be one or the other. I actually also experienced that discussion as a sudden displaced attack on women for not arming themselves to prevent being attacked. Which is exactly what blaming the victim does. I don't want to live with a constant obsession with defense tactics to deal with a random man who can't figure out it's not ok to attack women. Stop being a danger to women. Period. Don't put it on women to be responsible for not being violated. I don't hold it against Peter though. I accept that this may be hard for a man to conceptualize.
Peter wasn't attacking women when he was grilling Kara, it was constructive criticism.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
Oh ffs...this is such a bullshit take on how the world operates. Women are the most protected class in human history. Period. Its not men as a class who commit violence, it's criminals. And the amt of men who do criminal things, including violence against weaker ppl, is miniscule. Rad fems like this have ALWAYS been full of their own BS. And its their 'victimhood at all costs' mentality that has DIRECTLY led to the current insanity. Wasn't it Julie that has taken the stance that all hetero sex is rape? Ffs...No thx.
The men you're talking about simply don't care. Their idea of what is ok is what they feel like doing. Men deal with these men with reciprocal force because that's the language they understand.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@beowulf_of_wall_st agreed. They are a category of ppl who are violent because they are VIOLENT, not because they are men!
@@dilloneliassen9622 No, it was potential victim blaming. Why aren't you a black belt? Where's your Glock? She told him she is situationally aware. She leaves potentially bad situations. She chose flight instead of fight or freeze. He has fixed ideas about how women should anticipate violence. This conversation didn't change his mind and probably not yours either.
He has also forgotten that there is no way that most women can overcome male physical advantage, no matter how many 'self-defence' classes they take. Bindel's right - his ideas about the physical potential of the average woman are pie-eyed.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect an end, to something that's been universal, to every single human culture, every single historical era? And considering that MOST male violence, has always been directed at OTHER MALES, do you think it's reasonable to (1) frame the issue as "misogyny", and (2) to expect it to stop, specifically against women? Not to deny that women are uniquely vulnerable (because of being smaller and less physically strong, among other factors), but at what point do we just accept that males and females have innate behavioural differences (like in virtually all species), and stop working from the assumption that this is 100% about "socially conditioning" and our "evil, patriarchal, Western society"?
Maybe females should exercise a little more parental responsibility and stop raising violent males. Everybody seems to forget that females dominate childcare and their actions towards the little boys in their care heavily influence those boys personalities and attitudes towards women when they grow up.
@nicoledickens2366 It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
TESTOSTERONE!!! Our biology has a huge impact on the self-protection/protective strategies we choose or that are even available to us. Of course, a bloke who’s lived his life awash with testosterone would see self-defence as an obvious go to but as Julie said, you only need to be overpowered once to know, that you need BETTER strategies than self-defence.
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
why is it that women so readily say they can do everything a man can do and they don't need men except when it comes to taking responsibility for their own safety? why is it that women should be able to be soldiers but can't handle carrying pepper spray
@@beowulf_of_wall_st don't you have ears? We live in countries where it's illegal to have any self-defence weapons ffs 🙄 Some of us don't follow rules and arm up regardless, but most law-abiding women and girls do as they're told: because they understand that weapons are used against them. In real-time, and later in court where self-defence isn't accepted by law. My best friend was home alone with small kids when 3 car loads of male thugs arrived at her home, wrong house something to do with drugs...when the police go there she still had a baseball bat in her hands as it was all she had to try and stop them entering her home whilst arguing they had the wrong house. She was charged as they had no weapons. One tiny lone woman against 10+ angry men, but our laws see her as using "unfair" advantage. In family violence cases it happens all the time: using a weapon (knife, ashtray, frypan, phone) that causes harm whilst being battered or choked or sexually molested will result in charges for females. You blokes just don't get it. We can't win. That's why so many of us die every week 🤬
@@gisellemagraibhaigh8342 women aren’t pressing for changes to those laws, are they? You are incoherent on this, you’re complaining that it’s illegal and also saying that weapons don’t work when women hold them for some reason but also citing a case where a woman you know used a weapon in self defense successfully. The UK laws should absolutely be changed to allow women to protect themselves.
I have the same observation that she has about your, in my mind, strategic play on ignorance and fascination. You do it a lot. It is a ruse. Apart from that, I think you're one of the most fascinating and learned minds of the social networks sphere.
The sad truth is that if men did not turn a blind eye to violence against women, none of it would be happening. Peter’s seemingly intensional obliviousness is a symptom of the pose of disconnection that all men possess. Yes, the violence is happening, and yes you are responsible, every time you look away, argue with or interrogate a woman about her experience, or over-rationalize every scenario. If there was an elephant rampaging through the town, the men of the town would be stirred to action, they wouldn’t interrogate observers about their experience with the rampaging elephant. Well societal violence against women and children is the rampaging elephant in human society, and until men grasp that reality, the elephant will continue to trample our village.
#believallwomen eh? We saw what happened after 2017 with the witch hunts against men to shove them out of their positions, the distancing of men from women to the point it limited women's careers because men didn't want to teach them due to fear of accusation.
Let's try swapping this around a sec. Why are you (specifically you) ignoring: 1) violence perpetrated by women, 2) SA perpetrated by women against children, 3) rampant discrimination against men in areas of society (education among others), 4) massive bias against men in family court, 5) record high male self-deletion via despair 6) the increasing cultural stigma against men & boys. Why are you ignoring these things and not doing anything about them? Why are you not taking responsibility? Is it because women are not a monolith, that you are an individual and, probably being a good person would do something if you saw something bad in front of you, but otherwise have your life to live and family to care for? Maybe?
@@banedon8087 LOL. You know the reason why. Because it is so vanishingly rare. If you are this triggered by common sense and fact, it seems to me you are betraying a guilty conscience.
It's a shame they spent the entire time talking about that one silly moment in the Kara Dansky interview. Julie is a brilliant woman and there's so much else to discuss.
@@natashas9768 Whatever you want to call the ridiculous group of people who blame "men" for everything and say stupid things like "Peter is ignorant about male violence"
I've heard Tommy Robinson & I don't find him to be rącìst. The reason he had gotten involved was because his 13 yr old cousin. I know he's a polarizing character, but when the news calls you one thing ~80% of the time, it's not true.
It appears that everyone in the comments agree with Julie on the male violence issue. May I ask then, what is the solution? She doesn't provide one. One of the worst things one can do is point out problems and solve nothing. All it causes is aimless hysteria.
I thought it was pretty clear that peter was showing that she doesn't actually believe the threat level she proclaims. If she really believed it then she would take steps to protect herself... That's what I thought was going on
I understand the argument of women having to be more hyper vigilante than men. But I can tell you confidently I am waaay more cautious and aware of my surroundings compared to my wife and kids, precisely because I am looking to defend them in every situation. I want to make sure that if anyone attacks my wife or kids, I can see it coming and defend them. Which, maybe maybe not, is just as hyper vigilante as women have to be when they’re alone.
I would agree with the last sentence in your statement. Not only that, but the paranoia of being alone with your child and something happening. It's still best to take the precautions as a woman, but that's all we can do.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
Bindel will always be a victim of something. She's the EXACT type of rad female that created this insanity. No thx.
I think it's great you are prepared to defend your loved ones. Do you need to defend them against women? Or is it other men. And if a man beat you, would you be worse off if he hit you or your wife? Why will men not stop beating each other up? Is it in their natures? If so, what should women do about them, because men are a danger to themselves and women. Let's be clear about that.
Women typically relax more around their male partners, because they feel safer, but if your wife doesn't take a series of precautions against male violence when she's on her own, then she's very much in the minority of women. Most women take steps to protect themselves on a daily basis, steps that it would never even occur to most men to take. That's why Peter's stupidity is so frustrating - he seems to naively think that with some self-defence classes, women can become superheroes and defeat male predators, and then never get prosecuted for doing so. That's pure fantasy - he sounds like someone who has watched one too many Marvel movies. Peter understands that men have a physical advantage over women in sports, yet he doesn't seem to think that that advantage extends to men attacking women in toilets and changing rooms. His ignorance is perplexing.
Peter seems to think that carrying pepper spray or a weapon is a magical shield that will exclude women from male violence. He very quickly pivoted away from answering the question about what he does to reduce male violence rather than asking women what they do to thwart male violence. Nice sleight of hand, Peter. Now, what work do you do to address the men who do the violence?
@@ahatx8651 or perhaps he is willingly playing the part by arguing a point which many seem to have in order to platform guests like Bindel? He has done that often in street epistimology.
The most stupid thing about what Peter said and I think he probably regrets it is that women can fight off men. We literally can't. isn't it a thing that most weapons are used on the person that took the wepon out in defense? Men are stronger than women, my male friends, dad, boyfriend and family members have shown through the years, They can oin you down easily and you can not move. The only chance you might have is if you did BBJ or something which is an elite sport.
It's good to see someone who isn't a fantasist, who's watched too many films made for modern audiences, and sees the difference between male and female strength. What might make the difference is not only being prepared / armed, but knowing how to use such things and knowing when to leg it. For example: I don't know how to use a gun because in the UK we restrict them heavily. Therefore if I had one and someone were to attack me, I *might* be able to defend myself but I might just fire wildly and miss. However, if I were properly trained then I would probably have a much better chance. Not saying it's a perfect solution but perhaps it might help.
SA know no race. What knows race that makes a difference? The people investigating it. The reason that the situation in Rochdale with a certain ethnic gang doing terrible things to white girls was that it was no one, from the social workers to the police, wanted to be seen as racist so they didn't act until forced to. That there was a massive contributing factor as to why it went on for so long. There was a massive racial aspect to the crime itself (confirmed by one of the Judges when it all eventually went to trial) as the girls were targeted because they weren't of the perpetrators ethnic group - confirmed by the perpetrators. The take away from it all is to not ignore a crime because of the ethnicity of the person committing it and also keep in mind that it might be occurring at least partially because of the ethnicity of the victim.
My father was violent. I have been violently sexually assaulted by both an aquaintaince and a stranger and there is a world of difference between that and a domestic assault. Sometimes women need to be prepared to really hurt /stop someone who is a violent stranger or aquaintence, and I don't think it is the deepest insult to women or stupid to ask about this. There is no easy answer but a walking stick with practice before hand should be allowed even in the UK. Oh not every male is violent either
I know a woman who was attacked and permanently took her attacker's eyesight with a defensive tool she carried. this is the act of someone who actually believed she was in danger and took the practical steps that are consistent with that belief.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st Domestic assault is so different than stranger-predator assault. Bindel seems to only have wanted a fight. But discussions about how women can best defend themselves are important. That discussion was waylaid by Bindel.
@@clariceonline9757 well activists and advocates generally want to keep the focus on topics that move their preferred policy directions forward so I'm sure for Julie it feels like a challenge to her primary goals. truth seeking and activism are not compatible activities generally, but I think Peter failed to manage that tension
@@beowulf_of_wall_st J Bindel seemed to be intent on settling a score for K Dansky. Frankly (and if she read this, she wouldn't hesitate to call me stupid) I have no idea what she was getting at. Yes men are horrible and violent and they are all patriarchs. Where can we go with that? Separatism
How is that? He speaks clearly and is trying to understand where the other is coming from and all he seems to get in return is defensive posturing. He makes real effort to not get defensive whereas she just avoids honest engagement and goes to the usual blustering talking points that solve nothing.
Julie is an absolute legend. Peter just can't understand, he keeps running back to the same perspective of fighting violence with violence. No. That's not how I want to live my life. I will do my best to avoid and de-escalate. I will not carry a weapon. That is an incredibly American perspective and attitude. It's a shame he didn't answer Julie's question: At what age do we arm girls, Peter? I simply don't want to live in a world where everyone is armed in escalation. Julie started to explain at 30:51 that women just need to carry on with our lives. The daily reality of the threat of male violence is fucking exhausting.
I wonder if appropriate to compare the persistent risk that women experience to the persistent risk everyone has when driving a car. I don’t expect to get in a car accident, but I take steps like a seatbelt, using turn blinkers, driving the speed limit, not taunting other drivers, to reduce my risk at all times. I think that Peter took the 9/10 risk assessment from the previous conversation, sees that as a very high risk, and then asks what mitigating steps have been taken to reduce the risk. In contrast Julie seems to focus on whether there is any expectation for the victim to avoid a situation where she could be the victim. I too agree that there should be no violence against women. I have never publicly advocated that murder is good, does that mean that I condone it? I do not, and don’t even think that such a position needs to be preemptively stated. To my knowledge Peter has never advocated violence against women, does he condone it then? I perhaps would ask Julie what government policies or cultural factors promote or encourage inappropriate behavior. Such an answer could gain my support against those negative laws/culture and move in a positive direction.
I think Julie's point is that society should take repsonsibility for how males are conditioned to behave in ways that are "problematic", as they say. Peter's point comes off a bit like that women should be the ones taking responsibility, which I don't think he actually meant to communicate.
The difference between male violence towards woman and the risk of getting into a car accident, is that you chose to take the risk of getting into a car accident when you chose to get into a car. Women are at risk of male violence perpetually just because we exist and are women.
No, that is not an apt comparison. Everyone who gets into a car has the exact same safety measures available to them regardless of sex. If a female has taken martial arts and a male has taken martial arts, then the guy will win, no contest. Even a female with self-defense under her belt is going up against someone physiologically stronger than her no matter what. It's not an even playing field like car safety. Yes, women should be taught self-defense, for sure. But, you know, some of us just aren't built that way. So we take precautions, have whatever weapons on hand when we need them (just as an aside, when was the last time a guy went out with a male friend for the evening and was constantly scanning their surroundings to make sure no one would leap out at them? That's female reality.) and have still come to harm. So, yeah. I like Peter a lot and he's not perfect, and he admits it, and this is one he's wrong on. Fine. That doesn't make everything about him or his ideas wrong.
Yes, it absolutely is appropriate to think about it that way. We all know that a car ride could end in a fatal accident, but we accurately say that it's rare enough to be worth taking that risk. We don't go around justifying everything we do or don't do with an appeal to "but I might have to get in a car to do that and then I might die". We certainly don't act like western society is a "car crash culture" or talk about "car crash apologists" because we allow cars to exist even though people die in accidents. it's a political weapon. there are many cases of injustice where we have failed to punish violent men and failed to properly protect women from predators, and those need to be addressed, but talking about men as if it's a common thing for men to want to hurt women is absolutely asinine.
Peter, I really appreciate that you had her on, especially after your comments about Dansky and RF's in your last interview. This was really riveting...wish it was longer. You should have Dansky back on to see if you can tie any loose ends on this. The impression I got from that interview with Dansky was that you were implying her claims about MV AW risks were hyperbole and overblown, and you were using self defense as a way of suggesting it was BS, but now you're caught in a discussion about the feasibility of self defense and now you're left having to position every counter argument to it as if it's ideologically driven when it's not. Ladies like Dansky are talking about bare minimum basic public measures that are a macro level approach to mitigating risks, and your suggestion is more individualist. And that is fine, wonderful even...up until you framed it as contrary or oppositional to what Dansky is doing.
Julie is reaching.... Peter is right, carrying pepper spray makes sense, and like Kara I am often too lazy to do so, yet even yesterday at 69 years old, I still get unwanted sexual attention. Men can be so dumb.(not talking about you Peter!)
This is all about disbelieving Kara's 9/10 rating. You're trying to discredit her statement or somehow expose it as hyperbole, and you're using the self-defense narrative to try to do that. You have NO CLUE what it feels like to be in a female body when male violence is everywhere. And when Julie explains it to you, you can't move past your own very American self-defence / "Gift of Violence" POV (the number of times you've mentioned that book and your love of jiu jitsu... you're sounding like a preacher. )
Peter, you spend way too much time trying to justify your belief about this. It’s just not feasible for most women to constantly be armed and not have whatever they have on hand used against them. It seems like you’re ignoring how prevalent violence from people we know from men we know is, most of the violence we encounter is not from Randos on the street, but if we are carrying a weapon if we keep weapons near us and we interact with men intimately, the chances are we will have them used against us. This is statistically true. Verifiable. As far as “how about a black belt?” for every woman? Come on get real not every woman is physically athletic enough or has the time to train enough to become a high-level martial artist. She’s right you’re smarter than this.
If you thought your life was in danger to the degree most women say they do, they absolutely would be arming themselves instead of just crossing their fingers and hoping nothing bad happens.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 Really? Then she’s at far higher risk of a firearm death, by suicide or a man who takes it from her. But yes the number of women who can legally carry a weapon atall times (inside the home is most important as male aggressors are usually friends or family) is low.
@@goobydoot My GF is at zero risk of suicide, because she's not suicidal. No man is about to take her gun, because: 1) it's concealed; 2) it's in a Level 2 retention holster; 3) if she has to draw it, that man has maybe a second to stop what he's about to do, or he's getting popped. Don't conflate IPV/DV with outside threats.
Physical aggression or premptive attack is rarely the best choice for a woman at risk from a man. Remember if he's already got hands on her she has a low chance of winning, so she's got to act before he does, when she feels threatened but he hasn't done anything physical yet. Who wants that world? Women use avoidance and appeasement informed by excellent situational awareness. These techniques are trained into girls from an early age because they are the most successful.
That is very succinct, correct, and exactly what any honest arms trainer would say. You need a lot of training, and constant refreshers, to be able to reliably use weapons in the kind of dangerous situations women find themselves in.
Julie is just straight up playing DUMB when Peter asked if a certain demographic is committing the majority of these assaults on women in New York and she acted clueless ... No feminist that has looked at the data around these types of crimes(or viewed countless videos that are available online) or that has any life experience in cities like this is going to bother arguing this issue as it’s very cut and dry - we all know the most likely demographic to do this sort of thing .. let’s stop playing dumb please but at the same time I don’t know what happens if we are truly honest about things like this…?
Her worldview is dangerous to women though. So if her goal is to help women who are facing dangerous violence. Her advocacy is flawed in massively reducing actual violence. She looks at numbers to show that its a problem that too many males are violent toward females and too many males are complacent with male violence toward females. But that doesn't help solve the problem unless you can actually get people to care about changing what the numbers say. There is a talking past each other because Peter is like making an argument for being a better and safer driver on the roads. And she is saying there needs to be enforcement of laws on bad drivers instead of always issuing warnings or not having enough cops around to stop recklessness from being a norm. She also needs to teach and educate proper risk avoidance and precautions. Along with women sending clear signals of unwanted contact. If we could show her statistics that women who practice safety and do carry personal protection are far less of targets for violence to themselves. She should accept that it's not a bad form of education.
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
@AKAbattousi Great comment. Yes, I think Bindel would be in favour of placing a curfew on all men if she had the power to do so. She’s also wrong about the statistics for SA relating to demographic. The gr000ming gangs are almost entirely P@kistani, Musl!m men and that is because of what they are taught to believe about women and especially about women outside their faith. Binder’s wilful ignorance of this will help it to continue. Pol!ce and Local Authorities have been covering it up for the same reasons for decades.
@@AKABattousai where are these statistics which show that? On the contrary, many women died, despite fighting back and leaving defensive marks on their attackers.
@@Gingerblaze to my knowledge, the numbers show that its better for women to resist and fight back which will reduce the number of women constantly getting abused, killed or maimed. Escalating violent resistance can bring potential for men to retaliate and be more harmful. But the argument is that being submissive and letting it happen, is still going to harm you. It's not like women who are sexually assaulted or physically assaulted are going to feel any better for not fighting back. The emphasis would be on effective training. And messaging to women but it would also tell the predators what training is being the most recommended and how to overcome it with their own planning. I'm sure some methods are less likely to be effective. And some are more likely to be the difference in stopping violence toward you if you are being attacked. I can look up numbers if you like and we can see if there's some stats on if resisting, will reduce the chance you are further victimized. But I think it's intuitive that if you are using something that's effective. It's gonna protect you better than not using something that is supposed to be protection. The whole reason they call these things self protection is because they are gonna be good against a greater majority of these men who look for women who are easily made victims of.
On the subject of walking home at night alone, in my experience everyone has to be vigilant. The area I'm from it's the guys who get attacked for nothing. Brother has half an ear bitten off for just sitting on the bus. I've had my head stamped and put in hospital. Similar with others in the area. When walking with my sister, it was always me who they would try to punch or harass. Just had to walk the long way to avoid confrontation. Its wired when I hear people talk with the presumption that most guys can walk around relaxed from the bad guys.
As much as society has a duty to protect it's female citizens, life is to expect the unexpected and every citizen, including women, should be prepared to defend themselves.
Holy crap. Suddenly Peter takes random violence against women seriously, but only because he can make it about race. I was wondering why he wasn't saying those women should have studied jujitsu.
@@helendancelot I'm sorry to hear that. I have an ankle injury from jujitsu training that never completely healed. It's not debilitating, it could have been much worse, so that's another excellent point. We're not hypothetical people.
I slightly disagree with Julie on the notion that every woman everyday in every second is vigilant against men. I‘m not observing men all the time in my private life. I go to work, where I trust nothing severe will happen to me, I go grocery shopping, I am at home with my son and in none of those situations I regularly feel unsafe, in fact I feel safe most of times. Does that mean it could never happen? Of course not. I could get raped on the way shopping, but it’s highly unlikely. It highly depends on the situation and people around. That being said, I also know that for many women in the world this is really a luxury that they don’t have, because they are poorer than me or have other troubles and circumstances. However it IS definitely true that most women have been experiencing stuff like really disgusting or sexually charged unwelcome remarks, exhibitionism etc at some point or several times during their lifetimes. So it’s really much more complicated than „women in general have to be constantly vigilant of male violence“.
Thank you! The hyperbole is a bit nauseating .. my mother is in her early 70s and she goes shopping alone quite often. She tries to be aware of her surroundings but she isn’t on edge constantly like Julie acts like all women are ..
Thank you both for doing this. Peter was unprepared for the legend that is Julie. No one comes close to understanding male violence. I think more conversations are needed between Peter and Julie.
Glad these conversations are being had, peter! All so important! Thank you! Thanks for your curiousity and platform I’m from Portland btw- now moved - and a leftugee Portland lost its mind - we were lucky to have you there to witness first hand. Let’s not alienate each each other, but illuminate! Love you Julie!!!! Let’s alll meet up in Australia for Sall if the #TickleVGiggle goes to high court!! Women show up!!! Let’s make it happen sonehow!! And if someone can find Clarissa Pinkola Estes and ask her why she’s been silent- I really wanna know Woman Adult Human Female 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Honestly I don’t think Peter was out of line on this. I understand there is some risk of getting seriously injured in an accident when I get in the car, so I put on a seat belt, drive safely etc. The risk is never zero, and you can still get seriously injured in an accident even if you do everything right and wear a seatbelt, but you should still wear a seat belt. Wearing a seatbelt doesn’t solve car accidents, but it doesn’t make sense that you wouldn’t wear one if you were concerned about the risk of getting injured in a crash. Do I carry pepper spray all the time? No, most of the time I feel like my risk for encountering violence is a 1/10. However, whenever I’m going into a situation where I feel like the risk is elevated (like when I walk back to my car at night), I always bring pepper spray so that in the chance I encounter violence my odds of protecting myself are better than if I didn’t have it. Should it be that way and is that going to save you every time from all violence? Of course not, but it would be a stupid or rather careless move to know there is a risk and not take an appropriate level of preventive action. Maybe the preventative action isn’t always pepper spray, I just think what Peter is saying is if you really think the risk is 9/10 then it would make sense to match that level of threat with an equal level of preventative action. Some preventative actions could be situational awareness or using a buddy system, the risk still isn’t zero but maybe the preventative action only needs to meet a 3/10 threat in those situations. Risk to your personal safety may not be your fault, but it your responsibility.
You don't greatly increase your risk by using a seatbelt, since the accident won't turn it against you, nor will you ever be charged for using it and forced to provide evidence that you were definitely about to have a collision.
@@kerwynpk Wrong. The logical thing would be to do a statistical analysis on the degree of risk of each scenario, and adopt the most likely strategy to avoid harm. Women do this already by avoiding and appeasing. Even a tiny bit of research will show that, in aggregate, harm reduction for women is best served by avoiding conflict. If we were in a Marvel movie and not real life, then toting a gun around and being the main character would be the appropriate harm avoidance strategy. But (some) men just want to stay in their feelings instead of approaching problems logically.
Peter I really don’t understand this weird commitment you have to pretending you don’t understand that no amount of preparation on a female’s part will ever be enough to offset the prevalence and degree of danger that males pose to females as a default. It’s not hard to understand, this is so fundamental and basic and you seem to be doing that weird intellectualizing spiel of “help me understand/im trying to understand” etc etc. It has been explained to you clearly many different ways by many people (mostly women) and you seem to just not like the fact that the men are the aggressors in these scenarios, because you keep placing the primary responsibility on women. It insane to imply or suggest that women should be the ones in charge of the bulk of their safety, especially when most women worldwide do not have the option legally arming themselves. Stop acting dense, it’s not funny anymore.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 While its obvious that having more defense is better than having less/none, we are specifically talking about women as a group in aggregate, and not focusing on individual success stories of self defense with a firearm. When you look at defense as a whole, and women worldwide, it is glaringly obvious that the level of defense available is not enough to flatten the massive power differential between the average man who seeks to assault women and the average woman who is a potential victim. What about the most women in the world who simply don't have a way to legally acquire a firearm? They make up the bulk of all living women, but your response is very America-focused. Lethal self-defense in the form of a gun is frankly not a possibility for most women, so what do they do? What about older women or disabled women who will have a slower reaction time? What about women with children who have their hands full? What about locations with metal detectors that make it illegal to carry your firearm even though it's legal to carry in your state? What about minors who cant legally have their own firearm? Ffs, in the UK you can't even have knife or even pepper spray, are they all expected to be BJJ black belts? Be realistic. These scenarios vastly outnumber the marginal % of times that some women have been able to deter a male assailant. No matter how you slice it, the most obvious and easily enforcable measure is to stop all men/boys from having access to female-only spaces. I understand and agree that all people, especially females, should have some baseline risk mitigation skills, but it is primarily our job as good men to stop predatory men from making women their victims. I don't get why this is controversial.
@@FlakoFalco It’s Radical Feminists like Bindel who present the false dichotomy of individual women taking steps to protect themselves vs. reducing violence society-wide. I say, ‘both.’ You’ve made an excellent case for lifting restrictions on self-defense tools, including firearms. Countries like the UK have made it illegal for their citizens to protect themselves, yet are failing to protect their citizenry, especially women. Perhaps feminists worldwide should advocate for the right to bear arms. (NB: I’m not a big proponent of martial arts.) Between 500K and 2 million defensive gun uses occur each year in the US. 40% of gun owners are women, a number that is rapidly growing. That’s hardly ‘marginal.’ I completely agree that women’s only spaces should be for females only. The best way to prevent predatory men from victimizing women, is to put criminals behind bars for as long as possible. Vote out office-holders who coddle criminals. In the mean time, anyone at risk, male or female, should arm & train themselves.
Peter, don't pretend you're trying to understand when you aren't actually trying. The problem isn't that you're a man. Plenty of men are aware and compassionate and responsive to the reality of MVAW. They are respectful to individual womwn when discussing the subject. It isn’t hard for them to be this way, and it doesn't require leaps of imagination. It just requires genuine willingness.
It’s interesting how people heard what they wanted to hear.
Peter, you seem like a good guy who is interesting, and you have platformed women who have been 'cancelled', and your espistemology stuff is great. But, as a man who has been assaulted in a number of ways by men, and who can defend himself, you're just wrong here. In the UK we cannot legally carry any kind of self-defence equipment or thing we intend to use as a weapon. Women who are older, or disabled, cannot become black belts in anything. and, even if both of those things were not true, then why should women spend half their lives to defend themselves against terrible men, when that defence will likely not work, and may well make the situation much, much worse?
Sounds like you are talking about yourself.
I’ve noticed that when someone’s answer is unpleasing to you, you do your “Help me understand” Poundshop Louis Theroux wrinkled brow schtick.
Peter, I really appreciate that you had her on, especially after your comments about Dansky and RF's in your last interview. This was really riveting...wish it was longer. You should have Dansky back on to see if you can tie any loose ends on this.
The impression I got from that interview with Dansky was that you were implying her claims about MV AW risks were hyperbole and overblown, and you were using self defense as a way of suggesting it was BS, but now you're caught in a discussion about the feasibility of self defense and now you're left having to position every counter argument to it as if it's ideologically driven when it's not. Ladies like Dansky are talking about bare minimum basic public measures that are a macro level approach to mitigating risks, and your suggestion is more individualist. And that is fine, wonderful even...up until you framed it as contrary or oppositional to what Dansky is doing.
Well said @@ncorp2668
That's not how I see it. I think you made a conceptual mistake and are now having a hard time working out what it is. I heard your desire to understand and at the same it's clear that it will take you a while because most people cannot switch perspectives at the push of a button. From what I gather you had planned to bring on a woman with a black belt to debate Julie! The question for women isn't self defense vs going outside unarmed or untrained. Women, like men, navigate a world in which men are both potential friend and potential foe. Unlike most men, women are targeted sexually, that is a physical and an emotional threat. Any man could potentially present such a danger. Close men and unknown men. Women prefer to not let that rise to consciousness too much in order to manage their lives. Men also could be targeted physically and sexually by other men, but our culture keeps that in check. Men keep one another in check. Men do not keep men in check who molest women, not to the same degree at any rate, or assaults on women would stop. Men usually feel safe around women. Ever wondered why that is? Women don't have the opposite effect when alone with men, quite to the contrary. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
It's interesting, and I assume this is the TH-cam algorithm or whatever, but every time I post pointing out that Dansky, a known radical feminist, would be charged with a hate crime if she pepper sprayed a trans identified man in a woman's bathroom, even if she feared for her life, the post disappears.
If you are assaulted in a restroom in the US you have every right to defend yourself. Pepper spray is legal in our state. It's not a hate crime to defend yourself.
youtube makes it extremely difficult to talk about any of this thanks to the weird comment deletion
@@clariceonline9757 People are unjustly charged with crimes all of the time. Many women, and presumably men, are in prison for defending themselves. This is a very politically charged matter, lots of variables in the "who's the real victim here" equation.
@@z4zillah556 As someone who's been on the receiving end... no prison time, but lots of legal red tape including anger management, pre-trial probation, etc... simply for getting the upper hand on an attacker who's friends called the police (thus was in the right)... I can totally confirm. You also hear lots of stories from those trapped in the system about their own cases, many of which leave you with an entirely different understanding of what "self defense" actually is.
If a trans person attacked Dansky in a bathroom and she maced him she would not be charged with a hate crime .. it also depends on witnesses available of course
Peter, I am a black belt, studying and training for over two decades now. I can admit that 90% of men will still likely beat me in combat. I also conceal carry everywhere I go. I still feel unsafe in spaces where I will be vulnerable and unclothed if any man can have access to me while in that state, most especially in public.
There is a difference between feeling unsafe in some situations, which incidentally men routinely do also (it is hilarious to me that feninists seem to think men wander about in a state of total oblivion without a care in the world - a complete inversion of reality), and pretending to be in a state of mortal danger all the time.
The reality is that women are generally safer than men in virtually every society on earth.
In the west, men are twice as likely to be attacked, way more than twice as likely to be killed, more likely to be mugged etc. etc. and nobody gives a shit. Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted and stalked, I think the only two crimes they are the majority victims.
Our focus remains entirely on women and women's safety.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't care about women's safety, of course we should, and most normal people do. Men should not ever be in women changing rooms for example.
What we shouldn't do is exaggerate the dangers and waste time on man-hating clowns like Bindel.
I was so glad for this discussion as I was so mad after the Kara Dansky interview. Julie said everything I wanted to say BUT was able to back it up with a mass of experience also. I will always be hyper vigilant as a lone female walker and this has stood me in good stead. Thank you Peter for being brave to face Julie. And as always Thank You Julie. 🇬🇧❤️
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
35:21 When Kara replied that she was "lazy" that was NOT in response to carrying pepper spray. (Go, rewatch it.) It was in response to you badgering her about self-defence - how many self-defence lessons had she taken, of what kind, when. It was an aggressive line of personal questioning that would have never yielded a satisfactory response for you because you had your mind made up about what should be done (as you still do). You were forcing her into a corner. And so, she did what most women do when facing male aggression: She de-escalated it by telling you something to make you back off. Do I think for a moment that Kara is lazy? No. She wanted you to stop your aggressive pursuit, so she gave you a weak "win".
It was such a perfect example of the de-escalation strategies women use almost subconsciously.
It's because it was such a stupid fucking question it caught her off guard and she didn't know how to answer. We've all been there with these stupid fucking men blaming us for what they do.
Nice gaslight. I'm too lazy to go back and watch the original convo, but I already know you're wrong.
So women are cowards who won't stand up for their opinions seems to be your take.
Thankfully many women aren't and don't trade in perpetual victimhood.
Boghossian's point was and still is valid.
She didn't really feel as much threat as she was saying she did. As the old saying goes, don't pay attention to what people say, pay attention to what they do, if you want to know what they really think.
@@jasper_of_puppetsYou're too lazy? You gaslighter you. 😂
Trying to regain our single sex spaces IS our way of mitigating some of the danger women face when out in public. That is the entire point which seems to get lost. If male violence is as rare as a herd of marauding elephants, we never would have needed the spaces to begin with, not to mention that we need to have privacy and dignity when we have a menstrual cycle. I understand that men do not get this, but I ask with all my heart that you at least try to.
Which is something Peter advocates for
@@ClintByrne I understand that, but him arguing we must not truly think there is a threat if we're not all going to get black belts undermines women's concerns and even questions if we need those single spaces at all if we're exaggerating the threat. The men calling themselves women have insisted upon using female spaces by claiming they are at risk of male violence. If Peter doubts the threat is as bad as women say, then it equally means the threat is not as bad as "trans women" aka men say, so there is no need for them use female spaces at all, we can tell them to go get a black belt if they are truly scared, and stay out of female spaces.
@@susiegluxman9041 that's entirely not it.
Everyone getting blackbelts wouldn't stop the problem. Because even a blackbelt won't save you from Ray Rice but it can help mitigate the damage you take, or other steps and training can.
If you honestly believe it's a problem you will face, you would take those steps, and petition to fix the problem for others so hopefully you don't have to use your training.
This is also just for violence by a stranger.
Allowing men in women’s sports and bathrooms is insane. Women and men need separate spaces. Separate gyms, separate bathrooms, etc. sororities should not allow men pretending they’re women and yet they do. Women overwhelmingly support transgenderism compared to men.
@@susiegluxman9041Jesus many of you are completely missing Peters point .. he is simply making the comment that IF women truly feel at constant of violence from men that they would probably take a little time to better defend themselves in said situations whether that’s carrying mace, proper spray or a gun or taking a few self defense classes . His point makes perfect sense and he isn’t saying that a few self defense classes will help any woman defeat all male attackers . Dansky looked very bad when trying to defend her point
And most men are for separate bathrooms ..
Peter, I thoroughly enjoy your podcasts & the fact you take the time to explore different perspectives. Im a woman & how I understand this (as someone who has been subjected to all of the things Bindel talks about). In the ‘heat of the moment’, my instinct is not ‘to fight’, it’s to ‘fawn’ or ‘flight’. These are my ‘go to’ defence mechanisms. I think this is probably true of most women. You immediately & instinctively understand you’re on the back foot against a male perpetrator. Fight response is likely to fail due to the very obvious biological differences. Appeasing, de-escalating or simply fleeing are far more effective and instinctive strategies for women.
The thing Peter is missing is that he is discounting every threat response that isn’t “fight back.” Julie tried to explain to him that women are constantly doing things to protect themselves like talk down aggressive men to buy themselves time to get help or leave. These are legitimate strategies that we already know and understand from psychology studies on threat and trauma. Flight and fawn are much more common ways that women deal with threats from men because let’s be honest, the vast majority of time women will not win a fight against a man. The data also shows that tools for fighting like guns and pepper spray often get turned on women when trying to defend or fight against men, like Julie pointed out.
Pepper spray is a worse than pointless investment. The person dissuaded by pepper spray is not a driven person. Guns work but require training and practice to stay proficient enough that getting taken advantage of is greatly diminished. Jiu Jitsu, Wrestling and Judo can be useful but start from the possible worst place for a women to be, at contact distance. Rather than focus on the 'fight back' thinking, consider Peter repeating back 9/10 is the perceived danger level and the response is so anemic. 9/10 danger level is kitted out with the boys running neighborhood watch checkpoints. 9/10 is not, 'well I just try to downplay encounters and avoid situations where bad things could happen'. The hyperbolic scale is naked as can be. Understand that 10/10 is at least active war zone levels of danger and conflict.
So true. I hadn't heard that expression "flight or fawn" before but it sums it up so well.
@@kerwynpk I have. For fun even. Unless you can get your hands on some CS gas(even then it better be as concentrated as possible), pepper spray and bear mace are laughable. I would rather carry around a small powder based fire extinguisher as that legitimately is a choking and aspiration hazard. Adding to the pointlessness of pepper spray, I've watch 2 women accidentally spray themselves while digging in a purse. Both have never carried pepper spray again because of how nothing the experience turned out to be.
@@kerwynpk It isn't a rambo thing. Expose yourself when you get a chance. Unless you get your hands on some CS gas the effect is a medium annoyance. Discount my experience and instead consider the two women I mentioned who sprayed themselves on accident and were not impressed. Only bother to engage because people lean on pepper spray as some option for self defense that doesn't just piss off a determined attacker.
What data show that OC spray and guns are often turned against their wielders?
Yeah . Peter she isn’t wrong. It’s never a fair fight. It’s best avoid as many situations as possible which many women can’t do and also… we want to have a life.
Buy a firearm. Then it's a fair fight. Stop this eternal victimhood.
Women keep saying "we are powerless" while it's clear you can equalise.
@@MustardSkaven When women shoot men they go to prison. When women pull guns on men, the gun gets taken away from them and used on them. Men like you are getting off on this bullshit take as just another form of your sadism against women.
My main difficulty with Peter‘s continued hammering of and cluelessness about this issue is that regardless of how many individual protections each one woman employs, the issue is actually what the hell is going to change in society? Kara, Julie, and so many others of us are trying to scream from the rooftops that men are not women, that men dressed up as women in locker rooms or on women’s sports teams or in women’s prisons are not safe for women. Sure, maybe if every woman or girl in each of those situations were fully armored, actual bodily harm would not occur, but as Julie is trying to say, that’s a hell of a lot of vigilance put on us every single minute of every single day, but more inherently, why should half of the human race change our daily routines to ward off the possible violence from the other half of the human race? And, by the way, this is part of the same slippery slope for all of the young girls now not wanting to be women and all of the young effeminate boys not wanting to be gay men and being offered ways to change their bodies instead of having society change to be more safe for and accepting of vulnerable women, feminine men, homosexual orientation, etc.
Most of us guys don’t want
Men in women’s changing rooms either or on women’s sports teams or changing rooms . I’m more surprised that this is even a thing in 2024
Peter isn’t clueless and neither is Julie - they are just seeing past each others point.
Thank you for your response to my response. And I really appreciate your words. I love men. I’m married to a man. I have a son. I think we’re talking about a relatively small number of men who want to force themselves on women and into women’s spaces. And I shouldn’t have said that Peter is clueless. I have really appreciated his voice in all of this madness. But I do think there’s something he is really missing or just not able to understand or empathize with as he repeatedly hammers at the same point about how women should just get self protection and that it’s not mutually exclusive with also changing society. That point is certainly correct, but it does raise the hackles of every woman who has been told just to fight back or just to be quiet or just to carry pepper spray or just not to go out at night, etc.. It would have felt completely different if after about the fifth time of “help me understand,” he said something like, “listen, I wish you didn’t have to think about protecting yourself in those ways even though I think you should, but now let’s keep talking about what we are all doing to actually try to change things.”
💯
You are screaming from the rooftops? What is the youtube channel or whatever where you making sure the message gets out which is coming from you?
"Why should we have to _____ ?" Sure, you can argue you _shouldn't_ have to. But in reality, that doesn't mean anything. We can play this game all day long: I _shouldn't_ have to look both ways before I cross the street, because all cars and drivers should respect me wanting to walk around this city without having to take responsibility for my own pedestrian safety!
I'm male but also pretty nervous walking around, esp around drunk people/at night. Adding a sexual component and average body strength difference to this makes it easy to see why women might be hypervigilant.
Thank you. My husband was beaten by his dad as a child, and witnessed his mother being beat, so he totally understands what it's like to be in a weaker position. Peter suffers a lack of empathy and imagination, and just can't seem to get it. I appreciate him and men like you that understand our fears and concerns.
@@pierogi3112
It is stupid to think that the woman is in the weaker position.
If you are a man and your wife is abusing you and the nth time you strike back once then your life is over. The police will arrest you, not the wife, your social circle will ostracize you, not your wife, and so on. Sure, women are physically inferior, but they have far more power.
@@pierogi3112 What exactly is he not getting?
He never denies a weaker position justifies fear. He is questioning why if that fear is there, why is the person not taking actions to decrease the risk?
And do you have a black belt and a hip holster? If not, you must really want to be assaulted according to Mr. Insufferable.
@@MustardSkaven Carrying weapons and learning self defense are not risk reducing strategies. Women are physically weaker the chances of overpowering a man in a fight are close to nil. The weapon would just as likely be taken away and used against them. Women do take risk reducing strategies by not travelling alone after certain times at night or by avoiding certain areas or by crossing the road etc. etc.
Oh gosh, Julie is so right about the “Superwoman” thing. I think this is a byproduct of women appearing in all these action movies like badass heroes. Why do I have to learn martial arts to walk on the street?? I have a career and a 2nd grader and laundry to do! Why am I going to dedicate months of my life to learning a skill I may never be in a position to effectively use? I’m 5’5 and petite, if a big burly dude twice my size comes at me, I doubt I’m going to Bruce Lee myself out of the situation. And if I pull out a weapon, I instantly escalate a situation, potentially putting myself in more danger, especially in a secluded area. I really do like Peter and I’m not radical feminist but this is so frustrating to listen to.
If you draw a gun without the intention of firing it to stop an imminent threat, then no, you're not someone who should carry a gun.
Julie didn’t come to play.
Julie always comes to die alone. I’ll give her this, her commitment to hating men and boys as the animals she believes we are is very consistent.
Haven't listened to it yet, but so glad!!!!
Did you watch a different interview? COWARDLY woman trying to give Muslim men a pass
She came to play the victim
@@floorfan7987 not at all.
You are not allowed to carry ANYTHING in the UK which you intend to use as a weapon Peter. I am a man who has been mugged a lot, but even I cannot relate to how a woman has to beware of men at all times.
You know that statistically, the most common victims of male street violence is OTHER MEN, right?
That's not to downplay the fact that women/girls are especially vulnerable; That (1) despite being less likely to be victims of violence, overall, women are more likely to be targets of SEXUAL violence, which is uniquely invasive and personal. And (2) that a man, attacked by another man, is more likely to be able to defend himself; It's not as inherently unbalanced as a man attacking a woman.
But it seems Bindel's main goal (not unlike many trans activists, ionically) is in being a "victim", and in MAINTAINING the (real or percieved) "victimhood" of women, just like trans activists want to MAXIMIZE the perception of "transphobia", because they NEED trans people to be seen as "victims"). She exclusively stresses the idea that women can't and SHOULDN'T do anything to avoid male violence; Men shouldn't be violent towards women, therefore MEN need to change (and not be violent to women), and women have no role to play, beyond telling men to not be violent to women.
And of course, male violence against women is unacceptable, and immoral. ALL violent crime is unacceptable, but I don't think it's unreasonable, that there's far more social stigma against a man who's violent to a women, than for a man who gets in a fight (or even attacks, unprovoked) with another man.
But the fact is, WE KNOW (at least to SOME extent) why males are more violent than females, and why violent males do more harm than (far rarer) violent females... And we know it's a factor that WON'T EVER change, unless basic human biology changes...
Testosterone has been proven to have a causal link with aggression and violence, as well as related tendencies, like risk-taking. Testosterone is also why males are physically stronger than females; It's the reason WHY a man attacking a man is seen as "less immoral" than a man attacking a woman. This doesn't excuse male violence; We ALREADY punish male violence, and especially male violence against women, and of course we should keep doing that; Innate biological tendency or not, we still hold individuals responsible for their own behaviour, as we should...
But it DOES mean that, while we should never EXCUSE male violence against women, the biological factors (namely tesosterone) means that common sense says that men WILL ALWAYS be more violent, and physically stronger than women; It's unreasonable to expect that there will EVER be a time when domestic violence stats are equal, between the sexes.
Really, this is kinda true of ALL crime; We know that there will ALWAYS be theft; That doesn't excuse theft. We still punish theft, and see theft as immoral and socially unacceptable. As we should... But anyone who said "As a non-theif, I have no responsibility to lock my car or not leave the keys inthe ignition, coz it's THE THEIVES' RESPONSIBILITY to stop stealing stuff!!" would be considered a complete idiot... But THIS IS THE ARGUMENT BINDEL MAKES, about male violence...
Bindel DOESN'T WANT to minimise instances of male violence against women; She just wants to LEVERAGE that violence, for her own ideological advantage, and staturs
Any EFFECTIVE, REAL-WORLD strategy to minimise male violence against women, would need to (1) accept that this issue is objectively NOT exclusively about "social conditioning" and our "evil patriarchal society|"; It's (at least in part) about INNATE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERNCES BETWEEN THE SEXES. Which means that scolding men, saying "stop being an evil misogynist" is NEVER going to solve the issue. And (2) accept that men and women (while desrving equal rights and equal oportunities) will NEVER BE BEHAVIOURALLY IDENTICAL.
And (3) like dealing with theft, or any other crime, (while it's true that the criminal is 100% responsible for their own actions, and should be punished) it's just impractical and unreasonable in the real world, to say "I have no responsibilty to try to avoid becoming a victim of crime, because it's THE CRIMINAL who should stop being a criminal!!" ESPECIALLY with this unique dynamic, of a crime involving two different biological groups, with innate behavioural differences.
But (again, like trans activists) Bindel will never do this, because minimizing real-world male violence against women is directly AGAINST HER BEST INTERESTS; This is the issue with left-wing "victim" narratives, as a whole; It means the activists, who are the voice of these issues (which often have a core of legitimacy) are incentivized to NOT stop the problem; In fact, they are incentivised MAXIMIZE the problem (or it's perception, at least), and to make sure the issue ISN'T solved, at least for the activist's working life.
Are women in the UK lobbying to change those laws? What if only women were allowed to carry pepper spray?
But dude, the point is to be aware and take precautions. Women used to talk about things like keys between your fingers, parking in well lit areas, someone walking you to your car, self-defense classes. Nowadays the young women are really stupid and expect the outside world to change. It is a very privileged, silly rich girl's stance. Compare this to anywhere else in the world where women face violence and threat on a way more elevated level. I don't take offense if a man makes sure I am taking precautions. It isn't about them not understanding danger... it is because men understand danger that they suggest these things..
So true.... I gave a hearty shove to several men when I was a young woman and it did work.. BUT it could have escalated very quickly and I would have had no chance against the upper body strength of a man.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st There's no realistic chance those laws would change. The media reaction if anyone proposed it would mean it would never get through parliament.
My husband loved scaring me when we first started dating. He thought it was hilarious that I jumped and screamed whenever I didn’t hear him coming behind me. After a year or so I finally explained to him that my response was because home was the only place I ever felt safe and let my guard down. I’ve been sexually assaulted on the street and in the metro more times than I can count. I wish I said that I had that movie moment every time, the moment where I bravely call out my attacker or punch him in the face. But the reality is that I often froze or acted like it wasn’t happening, because any man willing to grasp my butt on a crowded metro is someone who could be willing to escalate to violence. You never know if the people around you will support you, or if they’re in cahoots, especially in the city.
I live in Mexico City. Our metros come with female-only cabins. The statistic written on our trains in vinyl letters that 9 in 10 (let that sink in) women have been violated on a metro. I’ve only taken the men’s cabins around a dozen times and it’s happened to me, while I was with my small child and being quite vigilant.
I am always scared when I take a walk. Not some paranoid, anxious fear. Just a low-level undercurrent of wariness, like a prey animal on the Serengeti. I know that everything will likely be fine. I also know that anything could happen, and has happened. There is a beautiful canal near my home, it’s a far more scenic route than the one I usually take to get to the farmer’s market. I can’t walk it without my husband because it’s too remote. There are no neighbors, tall grasses. The only time I walked it I saw a man with a machete hacking grasses. Likely benign, but I realized how dangerous it was, particularly when he stopped hacking to silently stare at me as I walked by.
I have the same startle-reflex but sometimes I lash out as well, it's horrible and also embarrassing to explain to husband and kids who are just playing and joking that I can't be part of those games, that I cannot control it *at all* - yes, it's only at home where I lock the doors and let my guard down so thank you for sharing your story and illuminating something that I've tried to understand for decades.
I live in the UK and what you said about your experience on the metro in your first paragraph, is a replica of mine on the London tube and streets over many years. I wonder just how many women/girls worldwide have suffered these awful sexual assaults, would be interesting to know....
And I am also curious to know, in the "all women learn martial arts to protect themselves" proposition, is it the assumption that no men will also learn martial arts? Doesn't this lead to the "if a woman fails to physically dominate a trans identified man in women's sport it is simply because she hasn't tried hard enough" argument?
Thank you!
I thought I was the only one who saw the fatal flaw in his arguments.
Peter waffled a lot in this one, especially at the end.
Most men don't train martial arts.
Trans identified men that participate in sports train in and for a sport. A random male picked off the street will likely lose against an elite sports woman.
It's more about how both women and men should learn and utilize safety precautions, weapons, anything, to level the playing field, whether it's protective gear in sports, or fight or flight methods in potentially violent situations.
@@dilloneliassen9622There is no leveling the playing field though. Male bodies are typically bigger, stronger and lacking the anatomical weaknesses of female bodies. There is nothing that women and girls can do to overcome this. They can make themselves more difficult to dominate, but other than by not existing, there is nothing that they can do to render themselves impossible for the average man to dominate.
Or like I don’t get to have my own interests and desires - my whole life must surely be spent on my safety - not my own life … unreal
Saying self defence is the answer the male violence is just so stupid and ill -informed. If you are a petit woman against a much bigger guy, you just have no chance, surely that is obvious. Bang on, Julie!
I believe women should study some self defense but I myself have injured my neck doing so
It always seemed insane to me that people assumed equality meant that such obvious facts no longer exist. Sometimes the best defence is to run.
Wtf is 'male violence'? Is it comprable to female inanity? Jfc.
So what is the answer then?
Are you so delusional you think we can remove bad people from society? We already have laws against attacks. We have the threat of imprisonment and even death. Yet people still do attacks.
So tell us the answer, I can't wait.
He keeps circling back to the same crap! Women are constant targets. Men are bigger, meaner, and faster. Why is that so hard to see, Peter?
Because he wants to think it's only brown, Muslum immigrant men who are a risk to women.
True as a woman I find it hard to even think of inflicting violence on someone..and I have trained
Yes, I share Bindel's impatience here. I don't see how universally arming women is going to stop most of the violence women face--she's going to shoot her husband? Her father?
I don't know why Boghossian is stuck on this, but I advise him to move on.
Because the male can not live inside the female brain. Our outlook is inherently different in most cases due to both nature and nurture.
@@TrackerNeilTrue. I was in an abusive marriage and "prided" myself on being able to "hit back". But, I Always, Always hit/slapped with minimal force. I didn't want to hurt him, I just wanted to fight back.
I agree with Julie. I was offended by the way he badgered Kara and acting like she hasn't done more than most to combat male violence. It's not an individual solution. It impacts all women! So one woman arming herself is not the solution.
Individual solution for an individual problem.
Women are not a monolith, and neither are men.
But he had a good point. Young women in Western countries can be silly and very privileged in how they maneuver danger and violence. We need street smarts, not clinging to Utopian ideals and expecting the outside world to change for us. While some dumb young women are crying that their nipples should be allowed to be out without consequences smarter women in the world have to deal with real violence and threat, not the nonsense of silly girls.
One woman arming herself isn't gonna fix the problem of male violence. But it can prevent her from becoming a statistic.
I don't know if you ever listened to old radio shows like Love Lines, with Dr Drew. But it was quite common that risk avoidance along with always using protection was massively more effective than relying on other people to guarantee your safety.
This lady talking about an issue that is primarily Safety for women, needs to hit all the notes of what promotes safety.
It's like she's an ER authority, but doesn't advocate for workers in a risky environment to follow OSHA approved policies.
It’s pretty absurd to be offended over the way Peter spoke to Kara. He was trying to dig down to understand where the level of confidence came from in her belief that women were subject to a 9 out of 10 danger of harm from men. If women were actually in that much danger, or even perceived themselves to be, they wouldn’t leave the house, women would never engage with men, society would not function. So Peter was trying to understand how Kara believed this so strongly, despite the abundant evidence of this not being the case being so obvious. So Peter was trying to find the bedrock of that strongly held belief about women being in immense danger from men all of the time, without triggering the defences that often pop up when a strong belief is being challenged or criticised. If you watch his spectrum street epistemology videos that is often what his aim is: to understand what people believe, why they believe it, and how people end up feeling so confident in beliefs that they have little to no basis for beyond the belief itself.
Julie takes no prisoners. I love her forthright approach. I wish more people were like that.
Really? She seems DESPERATE to avoid saying "it was Muslim men", in regards to the gr00ming gangs.
Seems like THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of "forthright". She's doing exactly what trans activists do; She has a certain, pre-decided narrative (with pre-chosen "villain" and "victim" groups), and will stress whatever evidence supports that narrative, and gloss over far stronger evidence, if it DOESN'T support her narrative.
I agree with a lot of what she says, in criticism of "gender" ideology... But virtually everything EXCEPT that one topic, she seems like she's basically the same as the generic "woke" lefty on Twitter, for the most part.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298 I can't answer for her, but my guess would be that it isn't at all clear that their Muslimness was relevant to what they did. If the reason was cultural then suggesting their Muslimness was somehow sufficient for their crime is far too narrow a lens. It also supports the idea that this sort of crime is something that only certain demographics of men indulge in, which is far from true.
@@baconsarny-geddon8298ppl like Bindel are fantastic at mental gymnastics
Forthright? Bindel knows exactly what demographic is most likely to assault women in city streets yet she wouldn’t come out and say it. I find it truly baffling that we can’t state basic truths .. like Peter said we have to start saying the truth out loud!
@@onepartyroule oh Jesus no that’s not why. The only demographic that are sexually assaulting women in groups on a somewhat consistent basis are Muslim men. No one is saying this makes all Muslims bad but simply that it is a fact that one group is responsible for this type of crime. Same goes for the men punching women on American streets - they are black men in 95% of cases . Julie loves to generalize men but doesn’t go further in terms of race or ethnicity because she fears being called racist.
Kara is doing something to defend herself and other women - getting better legislation, and changing minds and hearts.
Not good enough, for an immediately dangerous situation.
How is more legislation going to protect you from someone who already wants to commit a crime against you?
Reasonable things to aspire to but the metaphorical defense of herself and other women is laughable in the face of clear and present danger.
@@JoeSakanayeah last I checked most psychopaths tend to not obey the rule of law
Muslim society certainly does make men violent, but western society? No. She’s got this all wrong, violent men are not “socialized” to be so, if it were a result of dominant western culture than violent men wouldn’t be a minority, they’d be a majority… obviously. So here’s a tip for her and the rest of the people trying to destroy western culture, STOP DOING THAT DUMBASSES. Let’s just cut the shit, this woman hates men and boys and wants to separate humanity by sex because fundamentally she DOES believe the problem is innate to boys and men. She believes that men and boys have something to gain from being violent, SHE IS WRONG, and her insane position is just going to further exacerbate the ACTUAL problem: fatherless disenfranchised men who no one ever gave a shit about raising to be a self-respecting man rather than pusillanimous and self-loathing “male allies” (as Julie would have all boys raised).
Replace "woman" with "elderly, frail, handicapped, weak, small, etc." in the self-defense argument. It's naive to think that bad people with bad intentions can ever be erased. It's a two-sided effort. Potential victims need to be proactive and bad people need to be punished. It's not an either/or proposition.
Then do that. Punish those w/those bad intentions. Don't classify all men as those ppl. Or all women as victims w/o agency.
Women ARE proactive. Martial arts is simply not the best answer or only possible measure. Do you think women generally have the time and resources to constantly train in martial arts? Some do, some don't. Some aren't physically capable at all. We need general measures like the ones Kara and Julie work for.
@@estellahavisham156 what are some of these 'general measures' I wonder?
Do you wonder? Or are you being snide? Julie explained some of them. For the most part, we try to avoid situations where we'll be at risk to the extent we can. I'm sure you're ACTUALLY already aware of this, but you don't understand that it's risk mitigation. Avoiding walking alone at night? Fighting for any space where we remove clothing to be single sex? Not leaving drinks unattended? Lots of things you already know but suddenly decided to play dumb about, no doubt. Those of us who can, will take more aggressive measures. Like learning combat skills. This is something I've done, not something every woman can do. This is something we contend with constantly and it's impossibly stupid of you to assume it just hasn't occurred to us to try to mitigate our risks because we're not all spending all of our free time and money on jujitsu lessons. 🙄
@@estellahavisham156 being snide wasn't veiled. These measures are things everyone considers, make and female. My issue with Bindel and her ilk is she's just demonstrably wrong. Her issues w/men as a class are delusional and she uses shame as a cudgel in order push a false narrative. Her words: we live in a culture of misogyny where men have permission...etc,etc
Gtfoh.
Peter’s whole position is that it’s women’s responsibility to sort this out, not men. A lot of abuse and harassment takes place in the workplace where men are in positions of authority. I have worked in places where unwanted physical attention by senior men is endemic. How do we protect ourselves again them then Peter, when we have to earn our living? Don’t say change your job because why should we have to?
It's not necessarily easy or possible to change job
I did martial arts classes with men and we sparred regularly and I am under no illusion that the men were very gentle with the women in the class to help us to learn techniques, and if they ever turned those same techniques back on us in anger it would be virtually pointless for us to know them, speed and upper body strength in men is so much more than for the average woman. Elite practitioners might have more of a chance, but as Julie said and I commented myself on the Kara Dansky piece, feminists campaign for the safety of all women, not just those young and strong enough to put up a fight.
Another of the methods that women (all people!) use and not mentioned by Julie, is simply not being a part of society at all, staying at home in a secure situation when we might prefer to go out but feel vulnerable. This is something that everyone needs to be aware of and why the police are there, to not let society fall under the rule of the young, strong, erratic and aggressive to the detriment of all. And we need to make sure the police don't fall into those categories themselves, or we are lost, saying this after incidents of police themselves being the attackers and murderers of women here in the UK.
Thank you, Julie. That convo with Kara really turned my stomach and changed my view of Peter and his work. Glad he had you on.
Do you agree with Kara that current western societies should be ranked 9 out of 10 on a scale of danger for women? I think Peter is being very clumsy in the way he talks about it but I was pretty astounded that she would say something like that.
Women certainly don’t appear to act like they’re always under attack in the west. Funny how many support Islam and will never speak for those women.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st 9 out 10 is ridiculous. When something like that gets said by someone it immediately says to me 1) they're not looking at the stats properly 2) they're probably in a bubble 3) they probably hold extremist view about the opposite sex
Some of the strategies... Out in public
- avoiding eye contact to not garner unwanted attention
- putting your hair up to stop it from being pulled easily
- condensing all shopping bags into one bag so not holding too much on your way home
- staying alert on trains, subways at night.. not playing on phone or listening to music
- scanning your surroundings aware of who is on the train or subway how old they are, sex they are, what behaviours they are exhibiting
- not drinking as much.. not drinking at all.. watching drinks being made.. not accepting drinks from anyone
- being aware of what you are wearing, tucking away jewellery, lanyards anything easy to grab
- wearing more comfortable shoes easy to run/walk in
-crossing the road when there is a lone man or groups of men walking towards you
- taking the long route home to avoid being followed home.. or if it is safer/ brighter more lit more ppl etc.
Yep among many things living in a world shared with men. This is not to say all men but instincts in your own community and travels of knowing men are more physically advantaged and are fully capable is simply the reality.
In 2020, even when the community I lived in was pretty bare. I had an encounter with a teen boy who followed me on his bike for my entire route through the neighborhood I live in. I did not notice him for lord knows how long because I could not hear him. I had headphones in. I stopped when I heard him in between songs. So I paused it on my phone and run kept running but with no music to see what he was up to. After a few more min and a few more turns
The idea of him "just being a teen" left me because he was still large enough to overpower me if it came to that.
Few more odd turns and I slow down. He slows down. At this point I shouted "where are u headed?" And he then turned round on his bike back the other way.
I run without headphones and music till this day.
I haven't seen the kid in the community since. But I am also aware now that "routing" is a thing. Figuring a woman's routine is the first step for abduction.
To Peter, we don't mean to be this paranoid. But if say human is a kingdom. Men are apex preditors and women come 2nd to that. So yes the same way animals male or female are smaller and often hunted or could be.
We as women keep head on a swivel and also... by way of the list above.... we do this list in silent.
Once more making ourselves small. Btw
So let us take those steps. If it offends men that women do this. Start checking the actions of each other. You have no clue what it feels like to subconsciously prepare for the worst in certain parts of your day
It's still fascinating to me that Peter doesn't see how women take precautions to defend themselves because it's not the precautions he would take. He would take precautions that a male can use not a female. Just because that's not the way you would do it doesn't mean it's not happening.
What precautions?
It is significantly more likely that a man becomes a victim of violence.
Almost all violence against women is committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Here is a silver bullet that will remove almost all violence in your life as a woman: don't do drugs, don't be around people using drugs, don't go to dangerous places.
A woman can't buy a firearm or pepper spray? What law says this?
A 160lbs male is not safe from a 220lbs male any more than a woman is. But the 160lbs male seems to realise he needs to arm himself to protect himself.
But somehow women can't do this? Why?
@@MustardSkaven These women are too attached to their victimhood.
I’m an in shape 5’10” female with a black belt and am smart enough to know that size beats skill. I would never enter an empty public restroom alone or an empty parking lot. I’ve sparred the teen boys and they can easily hurt me.
OK, now that someone has established the actual biological reality, can we skip the part "it would be nice so nice if things were not what they are, maybe if I wear my pink glasses and wish for it very, very strong, it will become the truth" and go to actual solutions, like learn how/when to escape/choose a fight (a big part of martial arts) or wearing a gun? Because performativity of the language vs. fire arms is not really a cliffhanger.
Peter, I fear you don't understand that the UK doesn't allow pepper spray, guns, or knives for self-defense. Being hyper alert is extremely stressful and leads to unreasonable paranoid fear. When my tiny daughter left for university I taught her to use her elbows and knees and bite hard. I armed her with a personal alarm and key ring torch that could break someone's nose. She doesn't accept drinks from strangers. I've taught my sons to respect that women live in fear of attacks, its not fair for them to be seen this way, but its a reality we must acknowledge.
Yea we should really fix the laws, that protect only criminals
It sounds like you agree with him completely?
Applying Cooper's Colors does not require ''hyper alertness.' Everyone when in public should be in 'Yellow':
“This is a relaxed state of general alertness, with no specific focal point. You are not looking for anything or anyone in particular; you simply have your head up and your eyes open. You are alert and aware of your surroundings. You are difficult to surprise, therefore, you are difficult to harm. You do not expect to be attacked today. You simply recognize the possibility.”
maritimesafetyinnovationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Cooper-States-of-Awareness-Givens.pdf
Wow, Julie doesn't take any prisioners
You should have her on again, its refreshing to have someone who has no 'filter' compared to other people who tip toe around a subject.
I don't understand her blind spot with Muslim men though
Is he disingenuous? 1. All weapons, including pepper spray are ullegal in the UK
2. Women take steps constantly to be aware of the males surrounding them and mitigate threats. How patronising of him to assume women just shrug and leave themselves defenceless.
All the platitudes. 'Not all men' ffs
He's just desperate to blame women for what men do. Which rule of misogyny is that?
@@wellsorted lol, the UK is broken.
Peter needs to interview Maggie Oliver to better understand the grooming gangs in Northern England. The scandal is it is still happening in these communities
How often though? I know liberals that won’t even admit that it is happening
Whatever you do, dont carry deep heat spray to liberally spray in the eyes of aggressive men, because it acts like mace, and you wouldn't want to disable them while you get away.
😂🤣
I am a big fan Peter. If Kara Dansky were to pepper spray a trans identified man in the women's room, what effect do you think that act would have on her life?
The same if she had to pepper spray a woman in the women's room. I know it's rare but it is a possibility. Gender is irrelevant when you are forced to defend yourself.
@@RenThrayskIt is ABSOLUTELY relevant when you're a woman. It's FAR easier for women to defend themselves against other women than it is for them to defend themselves against men.
How stupid of you not to see this.
And you also completely missed the point that men who call themselves women are now a more protected class than real women. If Dansky pepper-sprayed one of these men in a female-only space, she would be lynched by the trans mob. That simply would not happen of she did it to an actual woman.
@@RenThraysk Not in Portland, Oregon it isn't. If a known radical feminist were to pepper spray a trans identified man here, especially in relation to protecting women's spaces, it would be tried as a hate crime. Period.
She would be charged with assault. Because it is not illegal for him to be in the women’s restroom
@@phasis At least assault. I believe in the preservation of single sex spaces, but I hope no one would pepper spray anyone in the bathroom unless there was an actual threat of violence.
You could have saved time by asking a selection of practising women martial artists who have one or more black belt how they think they would fare in a street fight.
i doubt that many could go into full on combat mode and knock out a crazed man or disarm a man with a knife or gun or take full on punches to the body.. i'm not talking about trained female soldiers here but civilian woman. i had years of doing martial arts and the majority of women didn't stand a chance when fighting with strong men. i liked how julie asked you what you might be contributing in terms of educating men esp on domestic violence. The carrying of pepper spay is a good idea ..but it doesn't work if the wind is blowing toward you. It's not that reliable but good for a somebody to have esp when going to a car park . its a way that could buy somebody a little extra time to get away. so please don't think most women can train up and be like laura Croft or Emma peel . We need street crime to be more prosecuted.
there are security videos of women defending themselves available on youtube, go find them and watch them. most predators are not interested in a fight whatsoever
I’m a female black belt…I train with men and women, and know exactly how disadvantaged I am against a man, irl….. 18 year old boy dislocated my jaw, gave me concussion, and neck pain for months! He was holding back, and the technique was fairly tame, compared to other kicks.
@@sarahhale-pearson533 and you also understand that if a man attacks you that you have many more options than an untrained woman, right?
@@sarahhale-pearson533gosh I'm so sorry to hear that..I hope you have healed well
@@beowulf_of_wall_st i'm not saying it's impossible for some women. But its not possible for the majority .
"I'm genuinely trying to understand."
Why then it feels like he continually tries not to?
This was so frustrating and reading the comments there’s definitely a male/female split on this.
Not really. Both men and women in the comments appear to be in favor of Bindles arguments.
I saw this podcast and had the exact response word for word
Thank you Julie.
Can't believe he didn't start with an apology.....
Apologize for what?
Peter, your examples of threats are always one time issues. "The computer might blow up"? Are you serious? Maybe you should talk to some soldiers. I'm a veteran, but I'm a woman, so of course you probably won't hear it from me. Ask a male veteran to confirm. On deployment, we KNOW we may be hit by IDF AT ANY TIME. Do you suppose we refuse to sleep outside the bunker? Wear our body armor and helmet every moment? No. According to you, that means we don't REALLY think we could be hit by IDF at any time. Constant heightened vigilance isn't the same thing as a one time concern about freaking marauding elephants and exploding computers. You aren't conceptualizing that difference at all. We work for safety measures that reduce risj for all women. If we had to rely on martial arts, we'd have to train CONSTANTLY. We could do nothing else.
Thank you.
Re: The convo w/Kara D ~32:00 - Having watched Peter many times discuss women's self-defense options, I too have felt 'attacked' for not living up to his expectations/recommendations. It does indeed feel like victim blaming. While there are many common-sense steps women can and do take every day to reduce the chance of becoming a victim, not all are feasible all the time.
Julie is correct: we cannot live all our lives walking on eggshells. We are well aware from our earliest days that men are to be feared (sometimes even those we love). To imply that our lack of physical preparedness, whether it be obtaining a black belt, carrying a gun or pepper spray or whatever, distracts from the facts that:
1) not everyone is capable of physically repelling an attacker despite those measures (ex: children, many elderly, infirm or disabled persons); and
2) the responsibility for violence against women is primarily a MALE PROBLEM. Overwhelmingly it is men who perpetrate violence - not only against women but against men too.
*It seems an odd flex and completely ironic that in a conversation about male violence, the male interviewer would aggressively attempt to force the female interviewee into submissive compliance with his line of thinking (albeit in the plausibly deniable manner of Socratic questioning) thus placing her in a defensive position. QED anyone?
RE: * And I'd say a fair majority of women and men will not perceive the interaction as you have.
@@zannedaglio So your point is that a supposed "majority" of others' opinions should make me align my thoughts with theirs?
@@terfalicious No not in the least. My point was this: the aggression/compliance dynamic is invisible and goes unnamed for those for whom radical feminism is either an adversary, an annoyance or unimportant. This is a problem.
In this "episode" we have a woman having to instruct a man (again) on the issues. He says he "wants to understand," over and over again. But do you get the sense that he does? Why don't men get their sh*t together themselves. That's rhetorical, we know why ;).
The thing is we hear constantly how women live in terror but that's not how they act in practice. Women don't advocate for laws or policies that would make it easier for good samaritans to keep them safe. women don't protest for cases where men get in legal trouble for trying to subdue other violent men in public, women don't do any of the things that you would expect them to do if they really believed all of these things. I go to a laundromat and there is always a woman there who then starts making faces at me as if I'm doing something wrong by being there, when they know full well that I'm not a problem or they would stay home and wash their laundry by hand and demand armed female guards be posted. What Peter is getting at is the total lack of interest in actually solving the problem and a lot of interest in just using it as a conversational weapon.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st Wow, do you really mean to blame victims of violence instead of the perps - yet again? As if no woman is defending Daniel Penny...
No bias whatsoever in your reply 🤣
You sound deluded, friend, if you seriously think women should stay home, doing the laundry at home by hand, just to make you feel more comfortable? Maybe this anonymous, anecdotal woman can read you better than you read yourself.
It was funny watching Boghossian defend himself after Julie pulled the rug out from under him with the last question: 'Peter, what have you done to stop male violence.' Peter, lamely: 'I twice talked guys down from fighting women... Gorillas... I facilitate conversations.' If Peter were genuinely interested in understanding this topic he could have done the most basic research beforehand. What are the outcomes for female assault victims who fight back, trained vs untrained, armed vs unarmed? What is the evidence that studying self-defence is a better investment of their time than campaigning for better policing, laws and crime reduction. For all Peter's claims of enthusiasm for evidence-based decision-making, the guy seems to present no evidence at all.
what have you done to stop male violence against women
How are acquiring self defense tools & techniques, and advocating for crime reduction, mutually exclusive?
😂😂😂 Man, she really did not want to say young Muslim men.
What matter does it have. It's all men. White men have higher percentages to abuse children behind closed doors.
Black men are higher likely to have the confidence to assult in public.
Domestic abuse with women and men does not discriminate exclusively
Muslim men
Jewish men
Men men men.
As to why she states, race does not matter even if she said "this demographic" of men do.
They all do when it comes to sexuall assult and abuse it happens in all houses all communities.
Stop jerkin off to the idea that other race or creeds get called out is a form of a win.
It's All Ls here when as women we enter our community at certain times head on a swivel because of....men.
You lot are the apex pred. Sex rings and trafficking networks... majority men
Studies on violence against women... majority men
Sexual assault against women... majority men
Rape against women... majority men.
We as women don't filter out, oh he's a black man or oh he's a white man or oh he seems to follow this religion. Thus as a result I am more safe or less safe.
No, simply men.
If you are walking about at night. We are filtering out men.
Full stop, the obsession to point the finger just to say, well it ain't my kind. Is not a win.
Men
Simply
This topic is becoming really frustrating. He assumes that we don't change our public behavior out of fear and conviction of the threat. We literally do 24/7 take steps to mitigate the threat of male violence.
I do not go anywhere on my own. Im 34 years old female living in Dallas. I dont take myself out on my days off unless i have a male friend or significant other available to go out with me, whether thats shopping, lunch out, running errands or doing something fun like taking a walk or visiting a museum.
I envy my male friends in my age group. They travel on their own intentionally for vacations and yet i cant go to a store or zoo on my own.
As fas as self defense id love lessons in it. Im cool with carrying pepper spray or a pocketknife. I weigh 110 pounds and im 5'4. I really doubt i could fight someone off. Theres also my kind nature and i can't see myself going for the k1ll. I also fear jail. I fear public reaction (if i defended myself against a minority, which would be likely as i do sometimes have to travel on my own through places like downtown dallas.
I loved your channel before some of these recent discussions where you seem to double down on how we need to wear protective vests and be trained in martial arts... its ridiculous. Im disappointed
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
You don’t go to the store alone? What type of area do you live in? Many women I know go shopping alone and while I’m sure they are cautious and more aware of their surroundings - they aren’t that hyper vigilant. I’ve seen the data on stranger >>stranger sexual assaults and they are quite rare. I mean, you are much more likely to get sexually assaulted by one of your male friends .
@@brianmeen2158 I definitely sometimes do, it really just depends. Dallas TX is not very safe though and I have to be hypervigilant. I've had people make s3xual comments to me, I've had people from outside my complex come into my complex and ask for s3x while I'm trying to relax at the pool. I've been called racist for not having cash to give people begging downtown. I've been followed (I noticed that I was and a police officer approached me to tell me he observed it also). Thankfully I have good friends who watch my back and run errands and whatnot. But still. I do very much envy my male friends the literal ability to go anywhere and even travel outside the us on their own. Theres definitely still dangers for them and of course they need to be hypervigilant as well because that's the world we live in. But its unfathomable for me to travel alone and thats the difference.
Totally agree with Julie. Well put
Totally disagree with Julie. Poorly put.
My ex husband pushed me to the ground outside of our childrens after school activity. When I got up I looked across the roas and there were 2 men standing there laughing at me.
Guess you should of learned karate according to Pete. Or pepper sprayed him and the two blokes watching could ring the cops and say you attacked him 🫣
I mean, what does he want? Us females to go around matching violence with violence and getting the short end of the stick nearly every poxy time? Ffs
@@gisellemagraibhaigh8342 Oh the police didn't care anyway. They're terrible here in NZ. I'm ringing them once a week due to domestic violence on the neighbors and they don't even turn up.
I'm too old for Karate now😆 ill just stay away from men.
@@YEALANDS2024 well that's just shit 😩 good luck to you staying away, it's the only strategy we have in an insane society
She asks Peter what he’s done to stop male violence.
He did his whole dissertation in prisons working with, I’m assuming at times, violent male offenders. He published a book on passive communication and is an active epistemological missionary. He teaches people, men and women, how to have arguments without hurling abuses or coming to blows.
Peter has every right to ask why a woman chooses not to arm herself if she claims she’s in a constant state of threat.
Doesn't matter: he's a white male, he HAS to be guilty. While she doesn't have to justify herself in anyway.
Sure in an ideal Utopian world women shouldn't have to be hyper vigilant, but that's not reality.
Good point. But claiming women need to be *hyper* vigilant is itself hyperbole. Relaxed yet aware Cooper Yellow will do.
I believe I'm correct in saying that men are more likely to be the victim of violent assault than women. Not sexual assault, but violent assault. This narrative that some feminists parrot all day long that men walk around the world without a care is simply false. 99% of men would not walk around after dark with earphones in or with something that impedes your vision like a hood up. Most would avoid unlit parks, and those that went through would be HYPER vigilant. When men ask "why did you have your earphones in?" or "why didn't you avoid the park?". That's because they are the practical steps we take to remain safe, not something special we expect only you to do. We aren't expecting you to do anything we don't. I wish muggers, murderers, and rapists didn't exist. They do, so be smart.
@mattball3118 I completely agree with your statement about the prevalence of violent assault on men by men more than women. Statistically more boys and men are assaulted and murdered and we should be talking about that a lot more.
What I would add though, looking at your scenarios, is that the boys and men that are assaulted are not held responsible that they didnt defend themselves enough, or what did they do to attract that attention in the first place, or that they held responsibility for taking the route through the park. Girls and women however are looked at as if they hold some King of responsibility for what happened to them.
The additional element for women with the sexual violence, with rape, is the potential consequences of pregnancy and the moral dilemma and horror that comes with that. What do you do? Keep the child that is half yours or half from the person that hurt you, forced you? What about where abortion is illegal? How about keeping the child but remembering every time you look at them? How do you explain to everyone that you gave up your child without telling them you were raped and couldn't face it. What's the impact on your other relationships...with your husband/wife, or how do you tell your other children or parents about it? Being pregnant and giving birth and raising or giving up a child all have serious physical risks, illness and injury, even death, and enormous financial and living needs impacts. These are aspects of the results of violent and sexual crime that happen only to women. That does not negate the seriousness of violence to wards men, but there are a whole host of issues relating to violence and sexual violence to women that are different.
@@shelleyphilcox4743 Great points. I think what it ultimately comes down to is the tradeoff between freedom and safety. We have the right to go where we want, when we want, which means we have to take responsibility for our own safety. Rights and responsibilities are a package. If we accept that criminals exist, and that telling Ted Bundy that rape/murder are wrong would not have changed his behaviour, the only top down way to reduce risk is to curtail freedoms. Now, once we've caught Ted Bundy, we can curtail his freedoms. But until that happens, and just in case there are any other people out there like him, we have to be sensible. No amount of education will eliminate malevolent people who will cause harm to others. The best we can all do is to take sensible steps to protect ourselves, and hope for a rapid response from the emergency services if anything does happen. I think this whole disagreement between Peter and Julie stemmed from a miscalculation of the level of danger faced by women daily. 9/10 is clearly a gross overstatement, and all of Peter's questioning was downstream of that. If you really believed it was 9/10, you wouldn't leave the house. The civilians of Gaza are living in 9/10 danger, any regular member of society in the west makes light of their experiences if they claim to be going through something even remotely similar.
The female response to this is always “BUT IT SHOULDN’T BE THAT WAY!”
Yeah. It shouldn’t. But it is. Approach reality accordingly.
It boiled down to "it wasn't what you said Peter it was your tone" which is a pretty weak and emotional argument.
Thank you Julie.
I think Julie really held her temper well about the Kara interview 😂
In Australia only Police can carry pepper spray. Even when women are locked in their own homes at night, they are not safe. Julie you were extremely temperate with this curiosity of a man.
Well said! ❤
"curiosity of a man." LOL, you mean an example of a rational and logical person? I guess that is quite curious when you're a person ruled by emotions above all else.
They would be, if Australian law had a Castle Doctrine, and hadn't disarmed the people.
If police doesn't have the man power to handle rioting immigrants, maybe there are too many immigrants?
Shoveling more into that situation is surely not going to help matters. 🤔
Tell that to our ineffectual politicians of all parties.
This is one example where it becomes really visible how there simply are differences between actually being a woman or a man versus hypothesising what it is like to be one or the other.
I actually also experienced that discussion as a sudden displaced attack on women for not arming themselves to prevent being attacked. Which is exactly what blaming the victim does. I don't want to live with a constant obsession with defense tactics to deal with a random man who can't figure out it's not ok to attack women. Stop being a danger to women. Period. Don't put it on women to be responsible for not being violated. I don't hold it against Peter though. I accept that this may be hard for a man to conceptualize.
Peter wasn't attacking women when he was grilling Kara, it was constructive criticism.
Oh ffs...this is such a bullshit take on how the world operates. Women are the most protected class in human history. Period. Its not men as a class who commit violence, it's criminals. And the amt of men who do criminal things, including violence against weaker ppl, is miniscule. Rad fems like this have ALWAYS been full of their own BS. And its their 'victimhood at all costs' mentality that has DIRECTLY led to the current insanity. Wasn't it Julie that has taken the stance that all hetero sex is rape? Ffs...No thx.
The men you're talking about simply don't care. Their idea of what is ok is what they feel like doing. Men deal with these men with reciprocal force because that's the language they understand.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st agreed. They are a category of ppl who are violent because they are VIOLENT, not because they are men!
@@dilloneliassen9622 No, it was potential victim blaming. Why aren't you a black belt? Where's your Glock? She told him she is situationally aware. She leaves potentially bad situations. She chose flight instead of fight or freeze. He has fixed ideas about how women should anticipate violence. This conversation didn't change his mind and probably not yours either.
Peter's forgotten that male violence is everywhere all the time.
He has also forgotten that there is no way that most women can overcome male physical advantage, no matter how many 'self-defence' classes they take.
Bindel's right - his ideas about the physical potential of the average woman are pie-eyed.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect an end, to something that's been universal, to every single human culture, every single historical era?
And considering that MOST male violence, has always been directed at OTHER MALES, do you think it's reasonable to (1) frame the issue as "misogyny", and (2) to expect it to stop, specifically against women?
Not to deny that women are uniquely vulnerable (because of being smaller and less physically strong, among other factors), but at what point do we just accept that males and females have innate behavioural differences (like in virtually all species), and stop working from the assumption that this is 100% about "socially conditioning" and our "evil, patriarchal, Western society"?
Maybe females should exercise a little more parental responsibility and stop raising violent males. Everybody seems to forget that females dominate childcare and their actions towards the little boys in their care heavily influence those boys personalities and attitudes towards women when they grow up.
@nicoledickens2366 It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
Listen to it again you obviously missed his point.
Telling your interlocutor he is bordering on being stupid is totally a good faith conversation.
TESTOSTERONE!!! Our biology has a huge impact on the self-protection/protective strategies we choose or that are even available to us. Of course, a bloke who’s lived his life awash with testosterone would see self-defence as an obvious go to but as Julie said, you only need to be overpowered once to know, that you need BETTER strategies than self-defence.
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
Ok but what better strategies do you recommend? I don’t want men in women’s bathrooms either but beyond this what do you suggest?
why is it that women so readily say they can do everything a man can do and they don't need men except when it comes to taking responsibility for their own safety? why is it that women should be able to be soldiers but can't handle carrying pepper spray
@@beowulf_of_wall_st don't you have ears? We live in countries where it's illegal to have any self-defence weapons ffs 🙄
Some of us don't follow rules and arm up regardless, but most law-abiding women and girls do as they're told: because they understand that weapons are used against them. In real-time, and later in court where self-defence isn't accepted by law.
My best friend was home alone with small kids when 3 car loads of male thugs arrived at her home, wrong house something to do with drugs...when the police go there she still had a baseball bat in her hands as it was all she had to try and stop them entering her home whilst arguing they had the wrong house. She was charged as they had no weapons. One tiny lone woman against 10+ angry men, but our laws see her as using "unfair" advantage.
In family violence cases it happens all the time: using a weapon (knife, ashtray, frypan, phone) that causes harm whilst being battered or choked or sexually molested will result in charges for females. You blokes just don't get it. We can't win. That's why so many of us die every week 🤬
@@gisellemagraibhaigh8342 women aren’t pressing for changes to those laws, are they? You are incoherent on this, you’re complaining that it’s illegal and also saying that weapons don’t work when women hold them for some reason but also citing a case where a woman you know used a weapon in self defense successfully. The UK laws should absolutely be changed to allow women to protect themselves.
The apologism of this woman is absolutely insufferable.
I have the same observation that she has about your, in my mind, strategic play on ignorance and fascination. You do it a lot. It is a ruse. Apart from that, I think you're one of the most fascinating and learned minds of the social networks sphere.
The sad truth is that if men did not turn a blind eye to violence against women, none of it would be happening. Peter’s seemingly intensional obliviousness is a symptom of the pose of disconnection that all men possess. Yes, the violence is happening, and yes you are responsible, every time you look away, argue with or interrogate a woman about her experience, or over-rationalize every scenario. If there was an elephant rampaging through the town, the men of the town would be stirred to action, they wouldn’t interrogate observers about their experience with the rampaging elephant. Well societal violence against women and children is the rampaging elephant in human society, and until men grasp that reality, the elephant will continue to trample our village.
#believallwomen eh? We saw what happened after 2017 with the witch hunts against men to shove them out of their positions, the distancing of men from women to the point it limited women's careers because men didn't want to teach them due to fear of accusation.
If elephants were rampaging people wouldn't engage in hand to hand combat or even shooting them. They would run.
Let's try swapping this around a sec.
Why are you (specifically you) ignoring:
1) violence perpetrated by women, 2) SA perpetrated by women against children, 3) rampant discrimination against men in areas of society (education among others), 4) massive bias against men in family court, 5) record high male self-deletion via despair 6) the increasing cultural stigma against men & boys.
Why are you ignoring these things and not doing anything about them? Why are you not taking responsibility?
Is it because women are not a monolith, that you are an individual and, probably being a good person would do something if you saw something bad in front of you, but otherwise have your life to live and family to care for? Maybe?
@@banedon8087 LOL. You know the reason why. Because it is so vanishingly rare. If you are this triggered by common sense and fact, it seems to me you are betraying a guilty conscience.
@@wellsorted Vanishingly? No. In any event, I'm trying to make a point of massive over generalisation. But nice try on attacking my character.
It's a shame they spent the entire time talking about that one silly moment in the Kara Dansky interview. Julie is a brilliant woman and there's so much else to discuss.
Shame Peter's conversation with Kara led to this due to his clear ongoing ignorance about male violence 🤦♀️🤷♀️
@@natashas9768 lol radfems are so delusional 🤣
Who mentioned radfems?
@@natashas9768 Whatever you want to call the ridiculous group of people who blame "men" for everything and say stupid things like "Peter is ignorant about male violence"
@@shmuelrosenthal6661 he is though and he also defends sh*t eating politicions on twitter.
The violence that occurs in dysfunctional relationships is a completely different subject to attacks that happen out of the blue in public.
I know. Total obfuscation.
Yet Bindel kept conflating them.
I've heard Tommy Robinson & I don't find him to be rącìst. The reason he had gotten involved was because his 13 yr old cousin. I know he's a polarizing character, but when the news calls you one thing ~80% of the time, it's not true.
Yea this outburst damaged her credibility.
Love Julie Bindel. ❤ She’s also funny!
It appears that everyone in the comments agree with Julie on the male violence issue. May I ask then, what is the solution? She doesn't provide one. One of the worst things one can do is point out problems and solve nothing. All it causes is aimless hysteria.
I thought it was pretty clear that peter was showing that she doesn't actually believe the threat level she proclaims. If she really believed it then she would take steps to protect herself... That's what I thought was going on
I understand the argument of women having to be more hyper vigilante than men. But I can tell you confidently I am waaay more cautious and aware of my surroundings compared to my wife and kids, precisely because I am looking to defend them in every situation. I want to make sure that if anyone attacks my wife or kids, I can see it coming and defend them. Which, maybe maybe not, is just as hyper vigilante as women have to be when they’re alone.
I would agree with the last sentence in your statement. Not only that, but the paranoia of being alone with your child and something happening. It's still best to take the precautions as a woman, but that's all we can do.
Bindel will always be a victim of something. She's the EXACT type of rad female that created this insanity. No thx.
I think it's great you are prepared to defend your loved ones. Do you need to defend them against women? Or is it other men.
And if a man beat you, would you be worse off if he hit you or your wife?
Why will men not stop beating each other up? Is it in their natures? If so, what should women do about them, because men are a danger to themselves and women. Let's be clear about that.
Dude 100% and I know my dad was the same.
Women typically relax more around their male partners, because they feel safer, but if your wife doesn't take a series of precautions against male violence when she's on her own, then she's very much in the minority of women.
Most women take steps to protect themselves on a daily basis, steps that it would never even occur to most men to take.
That's why Peter's stupidity is so frustrating - he seems to naively think that with some self-defence classes, women can become superheroes and defeat male predators, and then never get prosecuted for doing so. That's pure fantasy - he sounds like someone who has watched one too many Marvel movies.
Peter understands that men have a physical advantage over women in sports, yet he doesn't seem to think that that advantage extends to men attacking women in toilets and changing rooms. His ignorance is perplexing.
Peter seems to think that carrying pepper spray or a weapon is a magical shield that will exclude women from male violence.
He very quickly pivoted away from answering the question about what he does to reduce male violence rather than asking women what they do to thwart male violence.
Nice sleight of hand, Peter. Now, what work do you do to address the men who do the violence?
Yeah you should probably do nothing at all
"Magical shield"? lol. These women are hysterical. Amirite, guys?
Jaysus it takes sooooo much energy for a woman to make herself heard when the man really doesn’t want to hear.
Men have the same problem with women. Or perhaps that both have problems getting *society* to hear?
Although it seems like he is pretending to be stupid, I don't think he is. The patience of Julie is stunning.
The willful ignorance is absolutely stunning
“I’m just trying to understand” total and obvious BS
@@ahatx8651 or perhaps he is willingly playing the part by arguing a point which many seem to have in order to platform guests like Bindel? He has done that often in street epistimology.
@@ahatx8651 Stunning.. and brave! lol
The most stupid thing about what Peter said and I think he probably regrets it is that women can fight off men. We literally can't. isn't it a thing that most weapons are used on the person that took the wepon out in defense? Men are stronger than women, my male friends, dad, boyfriend and family members have shown through the years, They can oin you down easily and you can not move. The only chance you might have is if you did BBJ or something which is an elite sport.
It's good to see someone who isn't a fantasist, who's watched too many films made for modern audiences, and sees the difference between male and female strength. What might make the difference is not only being prepared / armed, but knowing how to use such things and knowing when to leg it. For example: I don't know how to use a gun because in the UK we restrict them heavily. Therefore if I had one and someone were to attack me, I *might* be able to defend myself but I might just fire wildly and miss. However, if I were properly trained then I would probably have a much better chance. Not saying it's a perfect solution but perhaps it might help.
SA know no race. What knows race that makes a difference? The people investigating it. The reason that the situation in Rochdale with a certain ethnic gang doing terrible things to white girls was that it was no one, from the social workers to the police, wanted to be seen as racist so they didn't act until forced to. That there was a massive contributing factor as to why it went on for so long. There was a massive racial aspect to the crime itself (confirmed by one of the Judges when it all eventually went to trial) as the girls were targeted because they weren't of the perpetrators ethnic group - confirmed by the perpetrators.
The take away from it all is to not ignore a crime because of the ethnicity of the person committing it and also keep in mind that it might be occurring at least partially because of the ethnicity of the victim.
The dodging of the demographic questions was hilarious.
Bindel must frantically dodge any evidence that would undermine her ideological belief that all men are bad and equally so.
My father was violent. I have been violently sexually assaulted by both an aquaintaince and a stranger and there is a world of difference between that and a domestic assault. Sometimes women need to be prepared to really hurt /stop someone who is a violent stranger or aquaintence, and I don't think it is the deepest insult to women or stupid to ask about this. There is no easy answer but a walking stick with practice before hand should be allowed even in the UK. Oh not every male is violent either
I know a woman who was attacked and permanently took her attacker's eyesight with a defensive tool she carried. this is the act of someone who actually believed she was in danger and took the practical steps that are consistent with that belief.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st Domestic assault is so different than stranger-predator assault. Bindel seems to only have wanted a fight. But discussions about how women can best defend themselves are important. That discussion was waylaid by Bindel.
@@clariceonline9757 well activists and advocates generally want to keep the focus on topics that move their preferred policy directions forward so I'm sure for Julie it feels like a challenge to her primary goals. truth seeking and activism are not compatible activities generally, but I think Peter failed to manage that tension
@@beowulf_of_wall_st J Bindel seemed to be intent on settling a score for K Dansky. Frankly (and if she read this, she wouldn't hesitate to call me stupid) I have no idea what she was getting at. Yes men are horrible and violent and they are all patriarchs. Where can we go with that? Separatism
Peter is out of his depth with Bindel and Dansky.
How is that? He speaks clearly and is trying to understand where the other is coming from and all he seems to get in return is defensive posturing. He makes real effort to not get defensive whereas she just avoids honest engagement and goes to the usual blustering talking points that solve nothing.
Yes, because he's got an axe to grind about Muslims.
Julie is an absolute legend. Peter just can't understand, he keeps running back to the same perspective of fighting violence with violence. No. That's not how I want to live my life. I will do my best to avoid and de-escalate. I will not carry a weapon. That is an incredibly American perspective and attitude. It's a shame he didn't answer Julie's question: At what age do we arm girls, Peter? I simply don't want to live in a world where everyone is armed in escalation. Julie started to explain at 30:51 that women just need to carry on with our lives. The daily reality of the threat of male violence is fucking exhausting.
I wonder if appropriate to compare the persistent risk that women experience to the persistent risk everyone has when driving a car. I don’t expect to get in a car accident, but I take steps like a seatbelt, using turn blinkers, driving the speed limit, not taunting other drivers, to reduce my risk at all times.
I think that Peter took the 9/10 risk assessment from the previous conversation, sees that as a very high risk, and then asks what mitigating steps have been taken to reduce the risk. In contrast Julie seems to focus on whether there is any expectation for the victim to avoid a situation where she could be the victim.
I too agree that there should be no violence against women. I have never publicly advocated that murder is good, does that mean that I condone it? I do not, and don’t even think that such a position needs to be preemptively stated. To my knowledge Peter has never advocated violence against women, does he condone it then? I perhaps would ask Julie what government policies or cultural factors promote or encourage inappropriate behavior. Such an answer could gain my support against those negative laws/culture and move in a positive direction.
I think Julie's point is that society should take repsonsibility for how males are conditioned to behave in ways that are "problematic", as they say. Peter's point comes off a bit like that women should be the ones taking responsibility, which I don't think he actually meant to communicate.
The difference between male violence towards woman and the risk of getting into a car accident, is that you chose to take the risk of getting into a car accident when you chose to get into a car. Women are at risk of male violence perpetually just because we exist and are women.
No, that is not an apt comparison. Everyone who gets into a car has the exact same safety measures available to them regardless of sex.
If a female has taken martial arts and a male has taken martial arts, then the guy will win, no contest. Even a female with self-defense under her belt is going up against someone physiologically stronger than her no matter what. It's not an even playing field like car safety.
Yes, women should be taught self-defense, for sure. But, you know, some of us just aren't built that way. So we take precautions, have whatever weapons on hand when we need them (just as an aside, when was the last time a guy went out with a male friend for the evening and was constantly scanning their surroundings to make sure no one would leap out at them? That's female reality.) and have still come to harm. So, yeah. I like Peter a lot and he's not perfect, and he admits it, and this is one he's wrong on. Fine. That doesn't make everything about him or his ideas wrong.
@@pegm5937 Most women seem to (understandably) engage in avoidance measures.
Yes, it absolutely is appropriate to think about it that way. We all know that a car ride could end in a fatal accident, but we accurately say that it's rare enough to be worth taking that risk. We don't go around justifying everything we do or don't do with an appeal to "but I might have to get in a car to do that and then I might die". We certainly don't act like western society is a "car crash culture" or talk about "car crash apologists" because we allow cars to exist even though people die in accidents. it's a political weapon. there are many cases of injustice where we have failed to punish violent men and failed to properly protect women from predators, and those need to be addressed, but talking about men as if it's a common thing for men to want to hurt women is absolutely asinine.
I always liked Peter Boghossian but was raging with him and his victim blaming attitude towards Kara. WTF?
asking people why they don't put seatbelts on is blaming them for traffic accidents
Peter, I really appreciate that you had her on, especially after your comments about Dansky and RF's in your last interview. This was really riveting...wish it was longer. You should have Dansky back on to see if you can tie any loose ends on this.
The impression I got from that interview with Dansky was that you were implying her claims about MV AW risks were hyperbole and overblown, and you were using self defense as a way of suggesting it was BS, but now you're caught in a discussion about the feasibility of self defense and now you're left having to position every counter argument to it as if it's ideologically driven when it's not. Ladies like Dansky are talking about bare minimum basic public measures that are a macro level approach to mitigating risks, and your suggestion is more individualist. And that is fine, wonderful even...up until you framed it as contrary or oppositional to what Dansky is doing.
Julie is reaching.... Peter is right, carrying pepper spray makes sense, and like Kara I am often too lazy to do so, yet even yesterday at 69 years old, I still get unwanted sexual attention. Men can be so dumb.(not talking about you Peter!)
This is all about disbelieving Kara's 9/10 rating. You're trying to discredit her statement or somehow expose it as hyperbole, and you're using the self-defense narrative to try to do that. You have NO CLUE what it feels like to be in a female body when male violence is everywhere. And when Julie explains it to you, you can't move past your own very American self-defence / "Gift of Violence" POV (the number of times you've mentioned that book and your love of jiu jitsu... you're sounding like a preacher. )
Peter, you spend way too much time trying to justify your belief about this. It’s just not feasible for most women to constantly be armed and not have whatever they have on hand used against them. It seems like you’re ignoring how prevalent violence from people we know from men we know is, most of the violence we encounter is not from Randos on the street, but if we are carrying a weapon if we keep weapons near us and we interact with men intimately, the chances are we will have them used against us. This is statistically true. Verifiable. As far as “how about a black belt?” for every woman? Come on get real not every woman is physically athletic enough or has the time to train enough to become a high-level martial artist. She’s right you’re smarter than this.
If you thought your life was in danger to the degree most women say they do, they absolutely would be arming themselves instead of just crossing their fingers and hoping nothing bad happens.
And you would go insane.
"It’s just not feasible for most women to constantly be armed..." Really? My GF carries all the time.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 Really? Then she’s at far higher risk of a firearm death, by suicide or a man who takes it from her. But yes the number of women who can legally carry a weapon atall times (inside the home is most important as male aggressors are usually friends or family) is low.
@@goobydoot My GF is at zero risk of suicide, because she's not suicidal.
No man is about to take her gun, because: 1) it's concealed; 2) it's in a Level 2 retention holster; 3) if she has to draw it, that man has maybe a second to stop what he's about to do, or he's getting popped.
Don't conflate IPV/DV with outside threats.
Emotional reasoning vs logical reasoning. Poor Peter, had to be tough.
Physical aggression or premptive attack is rarely the best choice for a woman at risk from a man.
Remember if he's already got hands on her she has a low chance of winning, so she's got to act before he does, when she feels threatened but he hasn't done anything physical yet. Who wants that world?
Women use avoidance and appeasement informed by excellent situational awareness.
These techniques are trained into girls from an early age because they are the most successful.
That is very succinct, correct, and exactly what any honest arms trainer would say. You need a lot of training, and constant refreshers, to be able to reliably use weapons in the kind of dangerous situations women find themselves in.
And yes, Julie is correct, his affected manner of questioning is becoming wearing now.
I find it utterly frustrating and so phony....
Cry harder with your weary eyes. 😭
Julie is just straight up playing DUMB when Peter asked if a certain demographic is committing the majority of these assaults on women in New York and she acted clueless ... No feminist that has looked at the data around these types of crimes(or viewed countless videos that are available online) or that has any life experience in cities like this is going to bother arguing this issue as it’s very cut and dry - we all know the most likely demographic to do this sort of thing .. let’s stop playing dumb please but at the same time I don’t know what happens if we are truly honest about things like this…?
Julie Bindel is a champion debater. Genius. All the answers on the tip of her tongue. Logic, depth, irrefutable.
Her worldview is dangerous to women though. So if her goal is to help women who are facing dangerous violence. Her advocacy is flawed in massively reducing actual violence.
She looks at numbers to show that its a problem that too many males are violent toward females and too many males are complacent with male violence toward females.
But that doesn't help solve the problem unless you can actually get people to care about changing what the numbers say.
There is a talking past each other because Peter is like making an argument for being a better and safer driver on the roads. And she is saying there needs to be enforcement of laws on bad drivers instead of always issuing warnings or not having enough cops around to stop recklessness from being a norm.
She also needs to teach and educate proper risk avoidance and precautions. Along with women sending clear signals of unwanted contact.
If we could show her statistics that women who practice safety and do carry personal protection are far less of targets for violence to themselves. She should accept that it's not a bad form of education.
It is unbelievable how Julie would prefer to say “the problem is men” because she believes acknowledging the reality that the problem of culture is “racist”. She would literally rather say “men and boys are violent” than “Muslim men and boys are violent towards white women and girls”. And what fucking “work” does Julie do exactly? Give me a break. This woman has been doing that “work” for decades now and has accomplished exactly nothing because all she’s interested in is splitting humanity into two groups: the humans who are women and girls, and the monsters who are boys and men.
@AKAbattousi Great comment. Yes, I think Bindel would be in favour of placing a curfew on all men if she had the power to do so.
She’s also wrong about the statistics for SA relating to demographic. The gr000ming gangs are almost entirely P@kistani, Musl!m men and that is because of what they are taught to believe about women and especially about women outside their faith. Binder’s wilful ignorance of this will help it to continue. Pol!ce and Local Authorities have been covering it up for the same reasons for decades.
@@AKABattousai where are these statistics which show that? On the contrary, many women died, despite fighting back and leaving defensive marks on their attackers.
@@Gingerblaze to my knowledge, the numbers show that its better for women to resist and fight back which will reduce the number of women constantly getting abused, killed or maimed.
Escalating violent resistance can bring potential for men to retaliate and be more harmful. But the argument is that being submissive and letting it happen, is still going to harm you. It's not like women who are sexually assaulted or physically assaulted are going to feel any better for not fighting back.
The emphasis would be on effective training. And messaging to women but it would also tell the predators what training is being the most recommended and how to overcome it with their own planning.
I'm sure some methods are less likely to be effective. And some are more likely to be the difference in stopping violence toward you if you are being attacked.
I can look up numbers if you like and we can see if there's some stats on if resisting, will reduce the chance you are further victimized.
But I think it's intuitive that if you are using something that's effective. It's gonna protect you better than not using something that is supposed to be protection.
The whole reason they call these things self protection is because they are gonna be good against a greater majority of these men who look for women who are easily made victims of.
On the subject of walking home at night alone, in my experience everyone has to be vigilant. The area I'm from it's the guys who get attacked for nothing. Brother has half an ear bitten off for just sitting on the bus. I've had my head stamped and put in hospital. Similar with others in the area. When walking with my sister, it was always me who they would try to punch or harass. Just had to walk the long way to avoid confrontation. Its wired when I hear people talk with the presumption that most guys can walk around relaxed from the bad guys.
As much as society has a duty to protect it's female citizens, life is to expect the unexpected and every citizen, including women, should be prepared to defend themselves.
Feminist icon!!
Holy crap. Suddenly Peter takes random violence against women seriously, but only because he can make it about race. I was wondering why he wasn't saying those women should have studied jujitsu.
A person can get life changing injuries doing Jujitsu...I did
@@helendancelot I'm sorry to hear that. I have an ankle injury from jujitsu training that never completely healed. It's not debilitating, it could have been much worse, so that's another excellent point. We're not hypothetical people.
I slightly disagree with Julie on the notion that every woman everyday in every second is vigilant against men. I‘m not observing men all the time in my private life. I go to work, where I trust nothing severe will happen to me, I go grocery shopping, I am at home with my son and in none of those situations I regularly feel unsafe, in fact I feel safe most of times. Does that mean it could never happen? Of course not. I could get raped on the way shopping, but it’s highly unlikely.
It highly depends on the situation and people around.
That being said, I also know that for many women in the world this is really a luxury that they don’t have, because they are poorer than me or have other troubles and circumstances.
However it IS definitely true that most women have been experiencing stuff like really disgusting or sexually charged unwelcome remarks, exhibitionism etc at some point or several times during their lifetimes.
So it’s really much more complicated than „women in general have to be constantly vigilant of male violence“.
Thank you! The hyperbole is a bit nauseating .. my mother is in her early 70s and she goes shopping alone quite often. She tries to be aware of her surroundings but she isn’t on edge constantly like Julie acts like all women are ..
Thank you both for doing this. Peter was unprepared for the legend that is Julie. No one comes close to understanding male violence. I think more conversations are needed between Peter and Julie.
It’s not one woman-it’s all women- AND MEN, who should take steps to defend themselves against crime.
For women, physical combat isn't usually the best way to do that.
Glad these conversations are being had, peter! All so important! Thank you! Thanks for your curiousity and platform
I’m from Portland btw- now moved - and a leftugee
Portland lost its mind - we were lucky to have you there to witness first hand. Let’s not alienate each each other, but illuminate! Love you Julie!!!! Let’s alll meet up in Australia for Sall if the #TickleVGiggle goes to high court!! Women show up!!! Let’s make it happen sonehow!! And if someone can find Clarissa Pinkola Estes and ask her why she’s been silent- I really wanna know
Woman
Adult Human Female 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Honestly I don’t think Peter was out of line on this. I understand there is some risk of getting seriously injured in an accident when I get in the car, so I put on a seat belt, drive safely etc. The risk is never zero, and you can still get seriously injured in an accident even if you do everything right and wear a seatbelt, but you should still wear a seat belt. Wearing a seatbelt doesn’t solve car accidents, but it doesn’t make sense that you wouldn’t wear one if you were concerned about the risk of getting injured in a crash.
Do I carry pepper spray all the time? No, most of the time I feel like my risk for encountering violence is a 1/10. However, whenever I’m going into a situation where I feel like the risk is elevated (like when I walk back to my car at night), I always bring pepper spray so that in the chance I encounter violence my odds of protecting myself are better than if I didn’t have it. Should it be that way and is that going to save you every time from all violence? Of course not, but it would be a stupid or rather careless move to know there is a risk and not take an appropriate level of preventive action. Maybe the preventative action isn’t always pepper spray, I just think what Peter is saying is if you really think the risk is 9/10 then it would make sense to match that level of threat with an equal level of preventative action. Some preventative actions could be situational awareness or using a buddy system, the risk still isn’t zero but maybe the preventative action only needs to meet a 3/10 threat in those situations. Risk to your personal safety may not be your fault, but it your responsibility.
You don't greatly increase your risk by using a seatbelt, since the accident won't turn it against you, nor will you ever be charged for using it and forced to provide evidence that you were definitely about to have a collision.
@@kerwynpk Wrong. The logical thing would be to do a statistical analysis on the degree of risk of each scenario, and adopt the most likely strategy to avoid harm. Women do this already by avoiding and appeasing. Even a tiny bit of research will show that, in aggregate, harm reduction for women is best served by avoiding conflict. If we were in a Marvel movie and not real life, then toting a gun around and being the main character would be the appropriate harm avoidance strategy. But (some) men just want to stay in their feelings instead of approaching problems logically.
You seem hysterical. I suggest you take some deep breaths and maybe stick to talking about sports or something less serious.
@@kerwynpk What do you mean, when you say that guns are dangerous to use?
@@kerwynpk I'm not following. What type of altercation, at what distance, and why are guns more difficult to use up close?
Peter I really don’t understand this weird commitment you have to pretending you don’t understand that no amount of preparation on a female’s part will ever be enough to offset the prevalence and degree of danger that males pose to females as a default.
It’s not hard to understand, this is so fundamental and basic and you seem to be doing that weird intellectualizing spiel of “help me understand/im trying to understand” etc etc. It has been explained to you clearly many different ways by many people (mostly women) and you seem to just not like the fact that the men are the aggressors in these scenarios, because you keep placing the primary responsibility on women. It insane to imply or suggest that women should be the ones in charge of the bulk of their safety, especially when most women worldwide do not have the option legally arming themselves. Stop acting dense, it’s not funny anymore.
The huge number of defense gun uses by women in the US belie your assertion that no amount of preparation by a woman will ever be enough.
@@mattcavanaugh6082 While its obvious that having more defense is better than having less/none, we are specifically talking about women as a group in aggregate, and not focusing on individual success stories of self defense with a firearm. When you look at defense as a whole, and women worldwide, it is glaringly obvious that the level of defense available is not enough to flatten the massive power differential between the average man who seeks to assault women and the average woman who is a potential victim.
What about the most women in the world who simply don't have a way to legally acquire a firearm? They make up the bulk of all living women, but your response is very America-focused. Lethal self-defense in the form of a gun is frankly not a possibility for most women, so what do they do? What about older women or disabled women who will have a slower reaction time? What about women with children who have their hands full? What about locations with metal detectors that make it illegal to carry your firearm even though it's legal to carry in your state? What about minors who cant legally have their own firearm? Ffs, in the UK you can't even have knife or even pepper spray, are they all expected to be BJJ black belts? Be realistic. These scenarios vastly outnumber the marginal % of times that some women have been able to deter a male assailant.
No matter how you slice it, the most obvious and easily enforcable measure is to stop all men/boys from having access to female-only spaces. I understand and agree that all people, especially females, should have some baseline risk mitigation skills, but it is primarily our job as good men to stop predatory men from making women their victims. I don't get why this is controversial.
@@FlakoFalco It’s Radical Feminists like Bindel who present the false dichotomy of individual women taking steps to protect themselves vs. reducing violence society-wide. I say, ‘both.’
You’ve made an excellent case for lifting restrictions on self-defense tools, including firearms. Countries like the UK have made it illegal for their citizens to protect themselves, yet are failing to protect their citizenry, especially women. Perhaps feminists worldwide should advocate for the right to bear arms. (NB: I’m not a big proponent of martial arts.)
Between 500K and 2 million defensive gun uses occur each year in the US. 40% of gun owners are women, a number that is rapidly growing. That’s hardly ‘marginal.’
I completely agree that women’s only spaces should be for females only.
The best way to prevent predatory men from victimizing women, is to put criminals behind bars for as long as possible. Vote out office-holders who coddle criminals. In the mean time, anyone at risk, male or female, should arm & train themselves.
@@FlakoFalco It is quite feasible for a woman with a young child to defend herself and her child with a gun:
th-cam.com/video/XKBRcXqUQi8/w-d-xo.html
Julie Bindle is such a legend
👍🏼
Peter, don't pretend you're trying to understand when you aren't actually trying. The problem isn't that you're a man. Plenty of men are aware and compassionate and responsive to the reality of MVAW. They are respectful to individual womwn when discussing the subject. It isn’t hard for them to be this way, and it doesn't require leaps of imagination. It just requires genuine willingness.
What a low aykyuu drone you are, lmao.