Guilty Feminist on Triggernometry

Yes, but...

(1) How long would the interview had gone on for if he had picked her up on everything?
(2) I think the point of the conversation is more about teasing out her opinions, and challenging them and creating entertaining content. Not winning. Is a slam-dunk of a response necessarily the best way of acheiving their aims?

(3) If their aim to is to let the audience see who she really is, then batting back her nonsense gently so she comes back from a different angle might be better than stopping her in her tracks. If this was their aim they did a very good job of letting her expose her own arrogance, lack of depth of research or thought, lack of intelligence, lack of ability to argue without getting emotional, lack of ability to argue rationally, gaslighting, amateur psychology, lack of compassion or empathy. The bit where they were asking what "hard right" meant and all she could do is list things Trump the baddie is doing... FFS authoritarian crack-down on protest is (a) not necessarily bad if the protests are effectively violent anti-jew protests; and (b) authoritarian - which can be right or left - not simply hard right.
(3) It is incredibly hard to come up with the perfect response in the moment all the time. KK is good, not perfect.

It brought to mind the advice to not bother playing chess with a pigeon because theyll just knock all the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around on it like theyd won.

Recent interview with Davina Mccall was even less watchable. Utterly anodyne tedious whiffle, and the most screamingly boring bullshit I've seen in a while. It was like watching the therapy session of a pampered socialite with a therapist that knows indulging the endlessly self centred obsessions of their client ensures their continued paychecks.

I watched under a minute, and even then DFW failed to answer a direct question. Her powers of deflection are almost admirable.

yes - whilst she was infuriating, he totally missed whole mountains of easy wins of argument.

And the end of the interview is totally manipulative. The tone is, guys, if only you understood yourselves better you would agree with me, but you are so personally stunted and limited by your experiences, you will never understand the true truth revealed to you by the carefully selected indigenous peoples.

That review is totally cracking, and completely on point. It really did show that KK is not on top of this as a subject, and has just stuck it in the woke nonsense box, not the fundamental dismantling of women's rights that it actually is.

I wonder will he reflect on this. And do fucking better.

Deborah? I suspect nothing will make her wonder past the end of her massive glasses.

From inclusion to intersectionality, #MeToo to men's rights, rom-coms to pornography, Deborah Frances-White tackles urgent questions for the modern woman.

This actually reads like satire. Forget about abortion rights, prostitution, domestic violence and women's health care. DFW is here to ask the urgent questions about rom-coms.

She has confused feminism with self-help.

This is likely the root of the problem.

'She has confused' just about covers it.

It looks like having an argument with a faulty hairdryer.

Read the blurb on Amazon and it has all become clear:

“Why do we find it so hard to say 'No'?
How can feminism be more inclusive?
What can rom-coms tell us about taking charge?

The Guilty Feminist will challenge you, reassure you and empower you to see the world differently.

From inclusion to intersectionality, #MeToo to men's rights, rom-coms to pornography, Deborah Frances-White tackles urgent questions for the modern woman. Featuring interviews with activists, businesswomen and all-round inspirations, The Guilty Feministexamines how women can abandon their guilt, say No (when they mean it), say Yes (when they want to), and to change the world - and ourselves - for the better.”

She has confused feminism with self-help.

The fact that she obviously has never once listened to one of the feminists who don't agree with her is like a beacon shining brightly.

She really hasn't done any work on this.

This is similar to the claim that Native Americans (treated as a single homogeneous group rather than many different groups with different traditions) and Samoans accept trans identies. What is actually shows is that these groups had their own definition of masculinity and men who didn't meet that standard were considered other (like the Fa'fafine in Samoa). Aboriginal culture still know sex differences and there are and were differences in attitudes to gay and lesbian relationships within different communities

KK: 'at the very beginning I said that there is some confusion, I think, in in our discussion here, between people who don't fit into the stereotype of what a man should be and a stereotype of what a woman should be, and someone who claims to be the opposite sex. That's, I think, quite an important distinction'

DFW: 'I don't see it as the opposite sex - I don't think there's opposites, I think that I think it is far more fluid than that and I think - '

KK: 'You don't think there's opposite sex, so you don't think there's male and female?'

DFW: 'I, I just think it is more fluid than that, and I, and I trust people when they tell me that is not how they feel inside'

He has literally JUST SET OUT the difference between gender non conformity and biological sex, Deborah!

Why the fuck can't these people see the difference?!

'... I made lots of really interesting new arguments you'd never heard before.'

Holy Hubris, Deborah.

Religious ideals are 'draconian'. This is bad. Indigenous people are 'archaic'. This is ... good?

31 minutes - DFW makes scare quotes as she says 'people', for no apparent reason. Hand gestures are not making the feeble arguments any more convincing.

Watched a bit more. DFW argues that aboriginals have brother boys and sister girls and are therefore more human and archaic. And 'indigenous' peoples exist in a state of archaic untouched naive wonder - to paraphrase. Has she ever heard of the noble savage?

I really have the feeling she doesn't understand several of the words she's using.

KK is saying that if 99% of the human population have one practise, that's the more human practise, which seems reasonable.

James Marriott is clearly a woke idiot and I cannot read any more of his moronic review.

I really like James Marriott and his regular weekly column is usually intelligent and thoughtful. And I don't think he's woke.

But I do agree that, from what little I saw of this debate, DFW came off much the worse.

It may have been said before (I’ve not RTFT), but her comment about bus driving clowns not being noticed after a year if 30% bus drivers were clowns, makes me suspect that that’s why the BBC keeps on (& on, & on) broadcasting about drag queens. Someone is trying to get us used to sexual fetishes being on display.

I now think of DQs as bus driving clowns.

I do think she has a point on the way Konstantin comes back with those blunt statements. I’ll give her that. Kudos to Francis, he sits there listening for two hours and then is devastatingly succinct in response to a fairly offensive line of questioning.

I worked in non-fiction publishing. They do get an opportunity to offer feedback. We would usually try to take into account their preferences but they are just one of many voices in the process - editorial, design, sales and marketing would all contribute to feedback, and ultimately the commissioning editor would get final say because they are the internal 'owner' of the book as a product.

'probably the single worst debate I have ever heard ' - that's making me feel like going back and persisting to the bitter end! 😂'

It honestly gets steadily worse. She starts off BADLY with the bus driving clowns, but by the end I literally had my head in my hands. The last 10 minutes or so are truly dismal - inappropriate, manipulative, tone deaf, egotistical and really shocking

Yes, I agree that does make the JM criticism rather unfair.

I think that KK proved that you can't argue with stupid, you can only get dragged down to their level (or towards their level).

Had he wanted to rationally demolish all of her points the interview would have gone on for days. His job is to let her speak in order that the audience can judge her arguments on their merits - it is not all about getting in the counter-arguments and proving the other person wrong.

I think KK did get trapped in the weeds of arguing about what was normal and got pulled into a pointless debate about colonialism.

More relevant - can the clown drive? Are the clown shoes and the clown nose safe?