After a few threads on different blogs (HUS, manboobz), Im starting to grasp the modus operandi that makes it so hard to talk openly with feminists about issues and reach to logical / sane agreements, or even logical / sane disagreements. It seems like if you want to debate like you are a feminist, you have to:
– Selectively ignore arguments.
– Present your arguments clearly and in a sound manner.
– Mis-represent every argument from the opposition.
– Present your statements as absolutes.
– Invalidate opposing statements on the basis they are trying to talk in absolute terms.
– Address only the stuff you oppose to.
– Get offended easily.
– Turn any disagreement into an accusation.
– Repeat your premises often.
– Demand sympathy / understanding for your cause.
– Ridicule / demonize the opposition.
– You are always the recipient of the wrongdoing, NEVER the one wrongdoing.
– If facts get in the way, ignore them.
– You are the role model for everyone else to follow.
– If its good for you, its good. Period.
– If its not good for you, it´s gotta be wrong. Period.
– If they hurt you, they are bad people. If you hurt them, they deserve it.
– Your job is to stand there, resiliently evangelizing, until everyone recognizes / celebrates you. Shame, insult, reframe, ignore, readdress, deviate, repeat if you have to. For as long as you have to. If the opposition opts for stop arguing with you and leave you alone, you have won. If the opposition drops the subject, you have won. If the debate turns ugly to the point it not longer matters, you have won. When the only sound left is the sound of your own voice, you have won.
– If for some reason you lose, if you find yourself cornered, or are proven wrong: escape, and try again tomorrow.
So its a strange cocktail of clear / logical presentation of arguments, plus solid, unmovable premises, selective listening, proactive reframing, thin skin, hard vicious tongue, strawman arguments, aphex fallacies, ad hominem, victim and inquisitor roleplaying. All at once. Nice.
What makes me crazy about this is I really, like, really would like to talk with these people, understand whats going on, address the mistakes, have an intelligent discussion over topics, etc. I would say its similar to talking to very religious people, except religious people have a BOOK and a lot of premises they all agree on. With feminists, its more about the posture than it is about the content.
And the posture is frankly rotten.
Hm. Why would you want to debate a feminist? I think they are a lost cause. I married one. I wondered why I had such a hard time talking to her. Now I see your list, she used EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics, all the time. Not only was she a self-avowed feminist, she was also a leader in her college’s debate team. Hmmm!
The only thing that worked with her was “pulling an Adam Sandler”. You know what I mean.
Because I care about the topics. Equality, equal rights, social justice, discrimination, etc. I also care about the mistakes they are committing, both philosophically and in the implementation, laws, outcomes, etc.
You can only have an intelligent discussion with an intelligent being.
Aint that the truth.
Hi Yohami,
I’m here from the Susan Walsh thread because you alerted me to this blog post a couple different times, and even said that I was direct inspiration for it. Thank you — I’m deeply touched!
While I think you’ve misrepresentd me, I will let it slide because you said you were interested in talking to a feminist about feminism. So here I am. Ask me whatever you like!
Millions of years of biology have conditioned the female body and mind to operate with in a social context. While this has given women biological advantages when it comes to socialization, it also comes with a heavy price. That price comes in the form of an increased susceptibility to groupthink. Women have evolved to both accumulate and thrive on “social capital”. This social capital is essentially their standing within their social group, and it forms a key component of their identity. Preservation of this vital element is a powerful psychological imperative for them, one that often requires repression of independent thought in favor of group norms.
Understand that the bulk of women whom call themselves feminists are in it for the self-esteem/social validation combo they get from being a part of the movement. Because of this, any attempt to argue against the tenets of their “philosophy” becomes a direct attack on their identity. That is really where their favorite term “the personal is the political” comes from. In essence, for most women, feminism is an emotional attachment masquerading as an ideology.
So if we use that reality to guide us and step outside of the “rational debate box” for a second, we see that because of this phenomenon, rational argument isn’t going to disabuse a feminist of her erroneous ideology, because that ideology was never a facet of her logic to begin with. Its almost like trying to talk her out of loving her pet puppy.
So, then how exactly do we talk women out of being grumpy, ball-busting, self-destructive fembots? We don’t….at least not on a one-on-one basis.
For a while, after the second-wavers rose to prominence, women started to abandon the feminist moniker in droves. The enthusiasm they had for the movement itself disappeared rapidly, despite their implicit support (for the time being) of many of the things it had accomplished.
Why?
You can thank comedy. You see, thanks to comedians and comedy writers, feminism became associated with the stereotypical image of the crazed, frigid, celibate, androgynous, angry feminist archetype. Given the real-life prominence of folks like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas, they weren’t too far off the mark. Once again, truth was apparently spoken in jest.
Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of that stereotype started to wear on the brand name that was feminism. No one wants to be on the losing team, especially not women. Young women, ever conscious of their appearance and social reputation, subconsciously recoiled at the though of being lumped in with the disgusting harridans they knew as feminists.
They began to deliberately deny association with the term, and even began to explicitly identify as “anti-feminist”. Yet, none of this can be attributed to winning them over via superior logic. Women cut and ran from feminism, for a time, simply because it began to adversely affect their self-image and social identity.
The thing that turned feminism’s fortunes around was its re-branding as a fun, sex-positive (and by extension sexy, which by further extension, is beautiful/valuable/desired) ideology. This was the inception of the so-called third wave, which is the form the cultural marxist nightmare has taken in the present day.
To “win” the argument you spoke of earlier, one needs to first address feminism’s very reputation on a culture-wide level. Only then, will we be able to address it, in individuals, on emotional, identity affecting level.
What exactly needs to be done, then? A campaign of education on the subject, specifically aimed (much like the anti-feminist comedy material of the 70’s and 80’s) at men.
Why men? Because:
1. They are capable of and more importantly, open to understanding it on a purely rational level.
2. They will be able to also understand the message on an emotional level (particularly the legions of disaffected and disillusioned betas).
and here is the really important part:
3. When a large enough group of men have adopted a distinctly adverse view of feminism, the great majority of women who associate with them will also adopt that view, primarily in the interest of preserving their precious social capital. This creates a sort of self-reinforcing “snowball” effect, further destroying the ability of feminist ideology to serve as a source of identity/belonging.
Thankfully, this is the work that the MRM has been carrying out in earnest over the past decade. Each man that wakes up and becomes hostile to feminism is another nail in the coffin of this the intellectually bankrupt and corrosive ideology.
Thanks for dropping by. How am I misrepresenting you?
I just watched your video! You’re a cutie-pie! Why is someone so cute listening to these Game people?
Anyway, I agree with what you said the video 100%:
1) Men shouldn’t have to open doors for women.
2) Men shouldn’t have to be the ones always asking women out on dates and risking rejection.
3) Men shouldn’t have to pay for every date.
4) Girls and boys should be given the same opportunities and privileges. (You said something about Girl’s Day and Children’s Day, but I don’t know what you were referring to. I am assuming that you were getting at the idea that girls and boys should be given the same opportunities and privileges.)
5) The standards should be the same for both sexes as to when it is appropriate to compliment another person’s hot body.
Did I miss anything? The only thing you got wrong was your apparent assumption that feminists would be likely to disagree with you on any of this.
Funny. Im not the guy on the video, I just like to posts youtube videos whenever I post something. Additional value. Why are you discussing with the guy on the video, instead of addressing what Im saying about your posture?
I started writing about the video before you posted your question. You asked how you misrepresented me. I do not believe that your overall description of “debating tactics” represents how I debated in the Walsh thread, with a couple of caveats:
1) I didn’t address all the arguments opposed to me in that thread. But my faulure to do so was out of necessity because it was an EXTREMELY long thread that covered a LOT of ground. If there is anything specific argument that you would like me to respond to, please feel free to ask.
2) I did at times ridicule my opposition — but then my opposition ridiculed me too.
3) I probably did repeat myself at times — but then it was an extremely long thread.
4) And yes, I did “present my arguments clearly and in a sound manner.” Thanks for noticing!
Yep, you´r statements are pretty clear. But so far you havent been able to address any of the counter-arguments properly, like, at all. There´s a lot of criticism in what Im saying here, if you feel like avoiding it, thats fine, it just serves to prove the point.
How have I “avoided” your criticism?
Which counter-argument would you like me to address?
Get it into your head, many women have been brainwashed to the point of no return.
The ladettes in the UK dude. These women are so messed up that they drink to the point of passing out in their own vomit in the streets. And these fembots from the UK tell on HUS tell us all of how their relationships are just so good and that marriage is so passe. But as a man, there’s no way in hell I’d commit to any of them. And speaking of those passed out losers in the streets, I wouldn’t stoop so low as to have sex with them. They’re disgusting and despicable creations of feminism. Not even worthy of respect because they don’t respect themselves.
That’s what will kill feminism off Yohami. The immorality, the self-hatred, and self-destructive nature of women uncontrolled will be their own undoing. You can’t cover up the lies my man when they show us all what feminism has done. Especially out in the streets for all to see.
You just have, but no prob.
“Because I care about the topics. Equality, equal rights, social justice, discrimination, etc.”
There is no such thing as “social justice”, which should become clear if you stop and think about it.
What do you mean?
Nice post. They are flat-earthers!
Why waste life talking at an ideology. You’re talking to a collection of concepts, predecided conventions, and the only feeling at the heart of it all is that “something isn’t right, I don’t feel ok” and so the fight (or argument) will go on and on and on trying in vain to ‘fix’ this feeling by controlling it with memories.
That doesn’t work… remember you wrote “when your mind fixates on a problem it creates a bond with the problem” (something like that, and it is true).
It is hard to have sincere communication with such people because there is no true and sincere acceptance of life. There is only a desperate struggle to escape from life (the insecure feeling) and toward some imaginary dream. Urgency and a burning need to prove, instead of trust.
The thing is, once you’ve wasted decades of life and effort ‘fixing’ a problem, the last thing you can ever really believe is that you are truly ok and there is no problem. Hence with such people it is always an endless battle, an endless purgatory. Like a beta male who says something “bad” and then talks more to try to fix the situation, and the last thing he will ever understand is to let it go.
World is full of people (crazy people) who interpret feelings of insecurity as problems out there in the actual world.
But how can someone so confused abotu life as to genuinely believe that darkness is real lead the way for culture, society?
Oh well, it is not really their fault because in the world today it is deemed to be a-ok to peddle whatever ideology you want. So poor little girls get taught that the reason they don’t feel quite right is because of X Y Z and already they are planting their stake in the ground about problems that would go away on their own if thye let them.
Best to just be nice to them probably.
Thanks for the blog Yohami, I like all these comments a lot.
Everyone can grow out of it but it can be tough when you’re used to being in the driver’s seat… to let life take over a bit.
It is more than tough (some say impossible) when you’ve just been driving faster and faster to try to escape all your enemies (ones you dreamed up when you threw down your stake).
Right.
“What do you mean?”
I should be the one asking what you mean. What is “social justice”? There is some just way for society to be outside of a courtroom? Justice there demands a commonly agreed set of standards, and impartial people applying those standards based on the closest approximation to truth. That’s not possible with “social justice”.
By social justice, I hope you don’t mean some people not having as much money as others, for example. That has little to do with society and nothing to do with other people. It has everything to do with how diligently people apply their talents. There are also no commonly agreed-on standards for how much money people should or shouldn’t have.
Some people talk about ending slavery as a social justice issue, but that’s a human rights issue, based on individual rights, not society.
So, what exactly is this social justice you are talking about?
Gotcha:
Maybe Im misusing the term, but with “social justice” I mean a society that is ruled by justice, like in, the good people do well, the bad people get fucked up. Right now its all about the capital / classes and zero about talents.
Clicked over from our exchange on HUS, obviously. I feel *exactly the same* about the extreme PUA/men’s rights folks, the counterpart to crazy feminists, if you will. Identical debate style, just like it’s the same for religious and other type of extremists (as you say). Talk about frustrating, especially when a better solution would benefit all sides if they could only talk to each other. Can we get together on this and change the world?
Oh wait, I don’t even have a blog, let alone any influence. Better stick with Susan
Good luck!
We can. Let’s.
So then, how exactly do we talk women out of being grumpy, ball-busting, self-destructive fembots? We don’t….at least not on a one-on-one basis.
True dat. I really don’t think it’s possible to argue an individual feminist out of feminism. It is, as you say, such a big part of their identity & focused so much in the emotions that logical arguments against it can only be heard by them as a personal attack.
It seems the thing to do is change society, or the values of society. Women as a demographic behave much more like herd creatures than men, & if it becomes clear that contempt for men is no longer considered cute & socially correct, women will change their allegiances in a heartbeat.
Also, when times get hard, as it looks like they are going to in the not too distant future, having a man around becomes a rather obvious advantage. Crazy ideologies are only able to be maintained so long as real life doesn’t intrude.
Every time I stumble across a fem rant/discussion I always think about the Jack Nicholson line: how do write about a woman? First, I think of a man, then I remove reason and accountability.
[...] about it in the past and wrote a few times about it. As seen in my posts about fear and the snake, feminist debate style, and my story with HUS. I first saw the behavior with my mom and some female members of my family, [...]