There is an incredible truth to the term “the personal is the political”, as it applies to women. In my experience, most women adopt political viewpoints as a way of securing group identity. In other words, the ramifications of the viewpoints they hold play a distant second in importance to the personal symbolism those viewpoints create.

This means that when you attack the logic of what she supports, you’re not just attacking a set of abstract ideas – you’re attacking a (possibly) key component of her identity.

Ergo, I don’t argue logical points with women whom have an emotional investment in a discredited cause – i.e. feminism and most of its shibboleths.

There is a correct way to persuade them though, and it involves some considerable use of the 6 persuasion principles, popularized by Rob Cialdini (yes indeed, I’m a big fan of his work).
http://www.influenceatwork.com/Media/RBC/E_Brand_principles.pdf
I’ve found that the trick with women is to apply them on an emotional level. That is, you must try to retrain the subject by associating their current belief with emotional pain or distress, while simultaneously associating your own with positive emotions.
In a way, it is an application of some core game principles to the function of debate. Framing, DHV, conditioning, all play a role in pushing the subject forward on a subconscious level.

In comparison, women operate more like white cells or nerve terminations that create a collaborative sense of safety / danger awareness. When they perceive a threat, they go in alerted state / fight mode immediately,

I am FAR from any sort of medical/biology expert, but an interesting thing here is I believe sometimes white cells can literally go haywire and attack the wrong cells. I think that is where some autoimmune diseases come from. I think there is another parallel right there.

[...] Most people cannot conduct arguments with clear logical thinking, listening comprehension, and measured appraisal of evidence. It’s simply not natural. Our instincts always pull us towards defending our public reputation, our identity, our tribe. We frequently make it personal and frequently employ intellectually dishonest sleights of hand. These latter are called fallacies and interest me greatly. Here’s an introduction to some of the commonly-deployed fallacies. Learn them, remember the names, and then identify them in the field. It’ll become so much easier to dismantle foggy thinking. [...]

Hi Leap, you got through in the end..

I’d beefed up the security a little just to deter random people hitting & running anonymously, but if it’s making hard for good folks to comment I may have to make it a free for all again.

What was that argument about?

The episode was about a man who had been cuckolded by his wife with his best friend. In the episode, he was the serial killer. I made it abundantly, crystal clear there was no excuse or justification for his behavior, and that he was nuts and deserved full punishment. But I did state that the wife’s betrayal may have been the precipitating event to him becoming unhinged.

The more I discuss the whole cuckolding issue with various women, the more I realize they simply don’t grasp the magnitude of the betrayal and offense that it is, and what it does to a man’s psyche.

Anyways, I used that as a launching point to make a point about a lot of female behavior in today’s society/culture. She personalized it and assumed I was lumping her in when I was not. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be with her. She said something that really pissed me off and hurt me, but I think it was just out of control emotions. We talked through it, but it was a rough couple of days.

IDK, various situations both online and in real life have led me to believe no matter how rational and logical a woman appears, there is always bubbling underneath the surface an emotional volcano ready to erupt.

I think this post captures some of it, along with your snake allegory. It’s funny….the ancients knew this stuff….it is interesting to read what Greek and Roman philosophers from 2000-3000 years ago had to say about women and the way their minds operated. Of course, even mentioning this observation opens a guy up to the characterization of women-hating misogynist as you well know.

Anyways, I think in real life you Game women and trigger those positive emotions, and stay away from intellectual intergender dynamics discussions.

“Most women find it very difficult to not personalize debate over purely abstract ideas.”

That reminds me of a great quote on Roissy’s old blog:

“Men win the argument to win over the group. Women win over the group to win the argument.”

This is so true. The level of a woman’s rebuttal is a sign of how much the truth hurts her the most. If she’s screaming and yelling insults, and even turns to violence, it means you are absolutely true with logical facts.

They resort to shaming language and personal attacks… Feminists have nothing.

and like their slogan “boys are dumb, throw rocks at them” we have “feminists are dumb, throw facts at them”