Comments on: Katie Roiphe (BSS #129)

By: Is Katie Roiphe Necessary? : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits

Is Katie Roiphe Necessary? : Edward Champion’s Reluctant Habits — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:16:36 +0000

[...] are date raped are indeed victims. Two years ago, when I interviewed this decidedly surly specimen, Roiphe still believed this. She had not altered her position one smidgen, and she seemed quite proud of this. It was as if she [...]

By: Lianna

Lianna — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:42:20 +0000

Very worth listening to BUT the background noise is very distracting. Taking more care will be worth the effort.

By: zgatt

zgatt — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:20:46 +0000

What to do when a subject doesn’t agree with the assertions implicit in a question seems to me to be a difficult problem. It might seem at the moment like they are ducking, in which case asking the question more pointedly might be called for. They might misunderstand the assertions/question, and so defending them will clarify the question. Doing either of those things when there is a genuine disagreement about the underlying frame of the question just comes across as combative.

It’s a turnoff to me here that you’re making it into a big deal, this entry and the podcast preamble seem to me to be pointlessly hostile. The dispute is clear in the actual interview, you asserted and she answered, repeatedly; it stands on its own. So your feelings are hurt?

By: mkb

mkb — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:27:34 +0000

I do think you were unfair with Ms. Roiphe at several points in this interview. In listenig to your podcasts, I realize that you like to ask challenging questions but you usually do so in a respectful way and it leads to some very interesting discussions. However, I thought you came across as quite dismissive with Ms. Roiphe on at least three occasions and I ended up wondering if it wasn’t your personal ideology preventing you from giving her a fair shake.

Those three occasisions were:
1) when you were completely dismissive of her argument that there is still pressure on women to marry — an argument for which I think you would find widespread support. You don’t have to agree with this, of course, but you’re response was basically “whatever, lady” as though this was some kind of extreme or unusal claim.
2) the Jane Austin question made no sense — and she said as much, saying something like “I really don’t understand your question.” You basically repsonded with a aggreived sigh and asked another question as though she was being obtuse or argumentative. I think she was legitimately asking for clarification on a confusingly worded question — like I said I had no idea what you were getting at either.
3) the incident at the end. Yes, she got a bit testy, but if I had been treated like that throughout an interview, I think I would have responded similarly. Is that sentence an example of her ideology affecting her scholorship — perhaps. It’s hard for me to say since I haven’t the book and wouldn’t want to judge based on one sentence. It did seem to me that you really wanted to make her make her look bad, however. That’s how it came acrosss anyway.