Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How To Argue With Feminists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How To Argue With Feminists

    here is an exchange between me and a bunch of Feministas, this is how it is done. I'm posting this because I want other people to see how to successfully engage feminists and win arguments and most importantly NOT LOSE YOUR SHIT ON THEM AND MAKE MRAs LOOK LIKE IGNORAMUSES IN THE PROCESS.

    A little background on this, this was an exchange on facebook, I am just posting the text because I am too lazy to spend half an hour cutting and pasting screen shots in paint. I'm blocking the names out because one of the people I am arguing against is related to me (she is married to my brother) and I don't want to cause them any undue suffering for having a stupid opinion. So without further ado...

    Key:
    People involved

    [OP] original poster and the one who is related to me
    [RD] random one post dude
    [WK] White Knight that swoops in to save the day.
    [FFF] Female Feminist Friend
    [ME] me, duh?

    '[ ]' with initials represents saying someone's name in a post
    ( ) anytime i do this, it's just me making a little note for the reader, the person didn't say that, it will be clearer to you when you see it

    [OP] posts this link http://jezebel.com/4chan-is-why-femi...ium=socialflow

    says for FFS!

    (it's an article about the word 'feminism' making the Time mag shortlist of words to ban, however it's not really consequential to the overall argument we are about to have)

    [RD] 4Channers are pieces of shit. I hope I dont get doxxed for this.

    [ME] I think that the push to ban feminism reflects the perception that feminists have been behaving badly of late...see the campaign to ban bossy (#banbossy ) .

    There is an old saying:

    Those who sow the wind, reap the whirlwind

    [OP] That's a fine line...suggesting women/feminists are behaving badly because they don't like being called bossy for a behaviour that would be applauded if it were men behaving that way? Because they don't want to put up with patriarchy telling them how to behave to be a woman?Methinks it is more likely some ignorance mixed with misogyny with a splash of pants-wetting over the potential shift in power dynamic betwen men and women to a more balanced state if gender equality were to actually happen.

    [ME] Fine and dandy I suppose, if it were the case that the goal of feminism was gender equality. As it stands it is not. Patriarchy is little more than a myth as it has almost no scientific basis whatsoever.

    [WK] Your move, pfft... I can walk into a discussion and say that because I'm the guy who invented slam dunks, statistics don't matter when they disagree with me. Advancing an extreme nonsensical position forces the responder to treat your nonsense seriously or to leave your idiocy unchallenged. I'll save Erin the trouble because asinine sarcasm is a special skill of mine. All of history says you are dumb and wrong, the last 160 years says feminism works.

    [ME] I was wondering how long this could last before someone resorted to ad hominem attack on me. I bet my friend five posts deep or less from my original post, and you did not disappoint '[WK]'

    No mater, statistics? You mean the fake one about the wage gap between men and women. No economist worth his salt believes in that.

    What about the part where you swoop in like the cheap white knight to protect [OP]. Don't you think she's a big girl, can't she fight her own battles? Way to go infantilizing a grown woman, who is the sexist now?

    I leave you with one more thought:

    If I suggested to you that the world was being run by a group of people who share the same religion (say the jews) You would say I was insane.

    If I was to say that a group of people who share the same gender were trying to run the world, I would be ready to teach a university level women's studies class.

    BOTH of these statements reflect a conspiratorial view of the world. Most people just haven't figured it out yet in the case of the latter. But perhaps that is changing, less than 25% of Americans identify themselves as 'feminist' down from a few years before.

    [WK] So many straw men in that argument, I hope you aren't near a match. Personal safety, political representation, full citizenship/personhood, reproductive rights, property rights and, sure, the wage gap are all statistically verifiable areas where women have been relegated to being the second sex throughout all of history.

    If you want to bring up Jewish people for no specific reason, if I were to say that the Holocaust didn't happen you might assume I was an anti-semite, therefore, because you assume the patriarchy doesn't exist I assume you are a misogynist.

    Furthermore I didn't swoop in like a white knight, I said this was so low-brow a discussion that my obnoxious debate style would fit right in.

    [OP] *sigh* It's too fucking early for me to get into this. I have to go to my job, where I deal with this shit all day long. If equality existed between genders, I would be out of a job. As it stands, millions of girls get married off before they are 18, many of them die in childbirth, and many others are the victims of violence, 1in 3 globally. Not to mention all of the discrimination, harassment, catcalling, and old rich men in suits trying to hold the decision making about women's reproductive choices. I could go on. And, despite what you think, feminism is about equality, not about control. It's about security of person and having a voice in decision making, and having agency and choice over one's life and being treated like a person and not an object for someone else's gratification.
    Thanks *[WK]*

    [OP] Fuck, my phone crashed. What I was going to say is thank you *[WK]* for speaking up. I know you know I don't need to be rescued by some white knight, you spoke up because you are like-minded and an ally.

    [FFF] "Fine and dandy I suppose, if it were the case that the goal of feminism was gender equality. As it stands it is not. Patriarchy is little more than a myth as it has almost no scientific basis whatsoever."

    Sounds like a cut and paste straight from an MRA website.

    [ME] Patriarchy: the belief that men run the world and women are largely excluded.

    So what I wanna know is if it is a concerted effort on the part of men to marginalize women...

    Who is the leadership of this movement?
    What are their policies?
    When and where do they meet?
    What politicians expressly support them?
    Who is their 'brain trust' in academia?

    None of these things exist!!!! It's a fantasy. It's not real.

    If you subsitute, say, the 'Neo Conservative' I can answer all those questions, but if you say there is a secret cabal of men conspiring to keep women down, I will smile and back away, because that is insane.

    Just a quick aside, I can only really do one response per day on this not because I don't have respect for the other people who posted, but because I have other things I really should be working on, I am happy to keep doing this in a respectful and honest way, but also being conscious of other people's time

    [OP] (she posts this article)

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress....r-womens-woes/

    [WK] It's impossible to have a respectful conversation with someone in a state of complete delusion on any subject.

    While the scientific community is working on ways to combat climate change, they have to just ignore the people still pretending it doesn't exist because they have nothing to offer on how to improve the reality.

    People who fight for social justice need to tune out people that pretend inequality isn't a thing, regardless of what type of inequality they're fighting against.

    Neither feminism nor patriarchy are specific organizations with a defined leader, memberships, or codes of conduct. They are real but abstract concepts of the correct way for for societies and and individuals to function and behave. Feminism advocates full personhood and self determination for women, Patriarchy advocates partial personhood for women.
    Pat Robertson was recently on television claiming that any unwed single mothers will go to hell if they die without correcting their "situation." He isn't part of a secret Man club plotting against women specifically but he is regularly advocating submission and docility in women on national television.

    The fact that there isn't an Illuminati or shadow government secretly working to make sure that a man can come home to a roast on the stove every night doesn't in any way shape or form detract from the painfully obvious fact that society is geared towards female oppression.

    [FFF] Here's where I direct people who insist that the definition of feminism is something other than equality

    (she posts this article)

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/are-you-a-feminist

    [FFF] Insisting patriarchy doesn't exist is a great example of patriarchy.

    [ME] Dear *[OP] in the article you posted the writer makes reference to the notion of 'Kyriarchy '

    Kyriarchy – a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in termsof multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.

    I would like to stress from the outset no one believes in this as positive political program (you could make the arguement however that Communist China and North Korea begin to approach it) If you are interested in this notion of fighting ‘Kyriarchy’ why are you not a Libertarian? Oh Yes Right! The only libertarian feminist Camille
    Paglia has been ostracized. Nevermind. However a quote further down the page seems to contradict the notion that it’s not a conspiracy, this:

    " Even in modern-rule-of-law countries with full legal sexual equality,
    there are still many patriarchal remnants in the way that men (as a group) seek to discourage women (as a group) from social independence and independent financial security." 'as a group' implies pre concert, so we are back to a conspiracy theory it would seem.

    Let's forgive that and just look at the concept of 'Patriarchy as
    pscho-social-cultural phenomenon where in (surprise?) peoples actions are being guided by powerful forces beyond their control. Indeed all of modern feminism in the last 50 years seems to be saying that individuals have 'internalized patriarchy' thus this is why the world is the way it is. This is pretty thin and very difficult to prove in any meaningful way. Feminism however would argue that 'patriarchy' is what makes the world go 'round. I would counter that money is a much more powerful force. More on this later. In fact if you were to ask me what are the top three forces that have shaped history i would probably say "money, violence, and stupidity" Not patriarchy at least not how feminists conceptualize it.

    Patriarchy may exist in the world and in history but it is not the governing force and I believe it is an outcome rather than a cause of anything. Let's do a quick thought experiment (that has potential to be a real experiment). If we were to take the 190 some odd countries in the world and rank them on a scale of 0 through 1 like a Gini score. We could call this the Fini score ('F' for feminism) . We could do this by means of a survey of 10 000 men from each country and ask questions like:

    do you believe that women should have the right to own property?
    do you believe that women should have the right to vote?
    do you believe that women should have the right to drive?
    Etc…

    What would the Fini show us? What would come out of this, well I think it’s safe to say that the English speaking world would do pretty well (closer to zero say between 0.1 and 0.2, probably top ten least sexist and ‘patriarchal’. Maybe the Nordic countries would do a little better and countries like Japan and South Korea might do a little worse than the English speaking world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would rank somewhere around 0.8 or 0.9. So in places in the Islamic world or Asia or perhaps India it makes some sense to talk about a notion of patriarchy, but not in the English speaking world.

    Let’s dispense with labels and definitions (what's the 'definition' of feminism????) and just look at positions. My problem with Feminism are the positions Feminist's take, not the notion of equality between the genders.

    Some Feminist positions:

    The world is governed by Patriarchy.
    Marriage and family is an oppressive institution for women
    All penetrative sex between men and women is rape.

    Believe in any of these statements? I don’t. I feel like there has just been a little too much intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance on the part of Feminists in the last 30-40 years, everything post Second Sex (1945) seems to have lost the thread. Want some advice feminist from someone who is in fact at least somewhat sympathetic to your position (gender equality)? Lose the wage gap argument (as in ditch it). It’s a bad argument because it doesn’t reflect reality and anyone with a modicum of due diligence can see it has serious problems.

    3 Arguments against the wage gap.

    GOOD
    If the wage gap existed corporations would be falling all over
    themselves to hire women? If a women is willing to work for less (let’s say 33% less than a man) then lets save some money on labor costs by hiring only women. Capitalism is far too greedy to
    pass up on a 1/3 saving on labor by hiring women, ergo if the wage gap exists all new hires should be women right? Well men get jobs every day in America (and Canada and the UK and Australia). Feminists seem to have a position (wage gap between men and women) that is painful at odds with the vicious unrelenting force of the market. Corporations aren’t stupid, they look better by hiring more women, if they can get the same work for less why wouldn't they do it?

    BETTER
    If we compare industry to industry, that is male programmers to female programmers, male doctors to female doctors, and male Architect to female Architect the wage gap seems to narrow considerably. Do all jobs have 50/50 male/female split? No. In the sciences for example men seem to like ‘things’ (engineering,
    software) women seem to like living things (biology, medicine) what does that mean? It might mean that there will always be more female teachers and that there will always be more male lawyers. Is this bad? No I don’t think so, individual preferences should be allowed to play itself out.

    BEST
    For the best argument against the wage gap we need to do a little bit of econometric analysis. We have to get a wide range of data and push it through a ‘machine’ so to speak. The way the machine works is it forces us to compare like to like. So male Vs a female in the same industry working continually for ten years is there any difference (on average) between the male and the female? So let’s say Male and Female both working for a prestigious software company (google for him and apple for her) for ten years without interruptions (he doesn’t get injured on the job, she doesn't take maternity leave). What is the wage gap? The answer may surprise you. There is very little difference between them on average. Don’t believe me? Take a look at this, three links for the wage gap

    https://www.econstor.eu/.../bitst......36/1/dp193.pdf
    The above is very technical – I suggest skipping to section 8.2
    https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicati...icles/?id=2160
    The above is a St. Louis Federal Reserve summary
    http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/.../orazem/blau_wages.pdf
    I hasten to say these are not Wordpress, or Buzzfeed articles but peer
    reviewed articles for University Journals and one is from the Federal
    Reserve. I trust I don’t have to argue that the rigor involved here is at the highest levels. The third link is really the best any proponent of a wage gap among feminists can do. The third analysis gets it down to a gap of about 7% (getting pretty close to a rounding error) which is way less than 23 cents on the dollar less claim that the #banbossy campaign made in its adds. All of this is public domain and available to anybody. If you disagree with this go get the data yourself from BLM (bureau of labor and management) and run your own analysis, that is if you feel you know better and can do math feel free to show us all different from this. In the United States there is no substantial (above 10%) wage gap between men and women.

    Anyway this is long, I’m drunk and need a smoke. My best wishes to anyone who wants to make the world better. See you tomorrow.

    ZZZZZZZZ

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++END OF THREAD NO REPLY FOR 12 HOURS NOW+++++++++++++++++++++


    So ...

    Questions?
    Comments?
    Concerns?
    Criticisms?
    General good philosophical musings about this in particular or more general phenomenon?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    that's all from me, I'm sick of writing and I need to go walk my idiot dog, and then maybe have a snack...

    Remember my brothers, stay classy
    Last edited by Bas Dini; 11-15-2014, 09:39 PM. Reason: typo

  • #2
    When you look at the modern world, the problem is not that there are not enough jobs, even well paying jobs. The problem is that millennials have been so coddled through their formative years that they are not qualified to do anything but bitch, moan and complain.

    No one in any advanced profession anywhere is demanding legislation to increase wages. It is low job skill peons who are barely qualified for the dumbed down jobs that they have, who are demanding wage increases, and the liberal politicians who are pandering to them for their vote.

    We are currently sitting on an entire generation of people who have more school, yet less education than any prior generation. They fail at basic reasoning skills, because their education was co-opted for political reasons.

    Even here where I live, Toledo Ohio, with our almost ~20% unemployment rate, I could go and get an upwardly mobile job tomorrow, simply because I have skills, can reason effectively, and I haven't ruined my body with tattoos, piercings, and brightly colored hair, and don’t insist on wearing eye glasses which I do not need. I have no degree, and can pass a simple drug test.

    Tomorrow, with my existing credentials, I could go get a job at any one of a half dozen construction companies. All those jobs would pay 60k to 100k a year. I could go get half a dozen jobs with the city, although I would have to wait a few months because I would not be a diversity hire.

    I could get a job and any one of a half dozen bars or restaurants that I frequent in my social life, because I don’t present as a total loser IRL introvert, and have basic social skills, like I wipe my butt when I go to the bathroom, and don’t smell like ass all the time. No need for advanced hygiene skills here like, takes a shower or brushes teeth.

    In fact, I would argue that the 20-30 year old generation right now is so incompetent at anything, that we should lower minimum wages, make it legal to discriminate against women, minorities, and homosexuals to make the group more employable and more attractive to employers.

    Pshaw… but you guys need to forget it. Now that you let the democrats con you into Obama care, no one is going to offer you a $300 a week job, only to foot their part of the $150 a week Obama care bill.

    I think Millennials just need to accept that all of them will be homeless at periods in their life when they can’t find people who let them couch surf.

    On Edit: The current wage and job climate has nothing to do with gender, but the low class and low quality potential of Millennials.
    Last edited by GregA; 11-15-2014, 10:49 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...unfair-economy
      Disillusionment: Another word for reality.

      Comment


      • #4
        Notice the absolute denial of their own culpability in the comments. No one made you take out that student loan, to get a degree in web development(a glorified communications degree btw). No one made you smoke that pot. No one made you cover your body in piercings and tattoos. And seriously... Labor unions??? If you think labor unions are the answer, you don't know the question.

        Employers are willing to pay skilled employees. Employees with basic job skills like: don't smell like ass, is not high on pot, shows up reasonably on time every day.

        No one owes you anything. Your generations basic failure is that you think someone does.

        If my generation failed you, it was in not shaming your parents for letting you play pee wee soccer without keeping score.

        Shape up, people with their shit together like me, are not going to live forever. When we die, you will starve. Time is running out.

        Comment


        • #5
          There was a science fiction story long ago, a bullseye prediction of the future, called "The Marching Morons"
          It got its title from the old story that if all the Chinese in China were to march by you, four abreast, they would never come to a end, because they would breed faster than they could march by. The author added that to the "dumbing down" scenario give here. Future society was barely held together by a small cadre of techs etc.
          Its coming true.

          Comment


          • #6
            I thank you all for your kind replies.

            Especially Greg who has some interesting point I want to address:

            You re absolutely correct in many aspects of your analysis.

            let's look at a list (not complete) of things millennials have trouble with.

            +++
            I can't do math very well
            I can't research very well
            I can't write very well.
            I can't meet deadlines very well
            I can't sell.
            I don't understand how a budget works.
            I work poorly with other people.
            I struggle to act professionally.
            It's difficult for me to learn anything new.
            I have a limited understanding of science and I have poor reasoning and critical thinking skills.
            ++++

            Let me say, if more than a majority of these apply to you (6 or more) you have some problems and you need to work on these things. I don't know the actual stats on something like this but I suspect for millennials they can get a third of them (maybe) with most of them only being able to say they are adequate in 2 out of ten of these areas. One of the reasons I believe this is the case is that a lot of these kids have been so completely and utterly handicapped by their educations. If they have any degree in the humanities (with perhaps some exceptions like some people in linguistics, philosophy or cognitive science) then they are most likely a mush head. By mush head I mean someone so full of post modern garbage (derrida, foucault, Marxism and Gender theory) that they can't operate any more in an intellectual or professional environment except as some sort of PC-bot. They think that they have wonderful critical thinking skills, until that something in the real world actually involves that, they think they practice logic really well until they are faced with anything that involves applying a little logic (chess for example), they think they understand the nature of probability and odds, until they are faced with anything that involves applying a little probability or study of odds (poker fro example).

            So, if you are a millennial and you have the intestinal fortitude to actually say you may have something wrong with you there are many people that can help, you just got to ask and be willing to put in some work. But don't forget these are the kids that threw their hands up in the air with regards to math and decided to do these programs because they thought they could avoid it. Let me tell you something kids, the future belongs to those who can do math.

            For my part I guess I am a millennial (sort of, born in 1981) but I do pretty good on that questionnaire i just posted (working on two rather than seven of those things)...I don't know everyone is different I guess.

            Maybe our new slogan should be 'NO MO POMO' as in 'no more postmodern' cause this stuff is toxic to you ability to think.

            anyway best wishes to all my brothers

            stay classy

            Dini
            Last edited by Bas Dini; 11-16-2014, 08:36 PM. Reason: typos

            Comment


            • #7
              Dini, I'd say you are already over half way there. Your last post was very introspective and didn't seem like you are stuck in some sort of victimhood. Now it will be easy to educate yourself to the deficiencies that you have identified.

              Good luck.
              Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
              "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

              For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

              "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

              "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

              "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan

              Comment


              • #8
                Remember, sometimes women don't have respect for logical arguments. They respect being out dominanced. And sometimes they respect it when you thumb your nose at them.

                Best way to argue with a feminist is to show them you don't take things too seriously.

                Argue with them a bit -- and then say "you know what? THIS is what I think of your logic:"

                Comment


                • #9
                  What the hell do you want to argue with a feminist? There's no point or benefit to it, and even if your right, they won't admit to it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bas Dini View Post
                    I thank you all for your kind replies.

                    Especially Greg who has some interesting point I want to address:

                    You re absolutely correct in many aspects of your analysis.

                    let's look at a list (not complete) of things millennials have trouble with.

                    +++
                    I can't do math very well
                    I can't research very well
                    I can't write very well.
                    I can't meet deadlines very well
                    I can't sell.
                    I don't understand how a budget works.
                    I work poorly with other people.
                    I struggle to act professionally.
                    It's difficult for me to learn anything new.
                    I have a limited understanding of science and I have poor reasoning and critical thinking skills.
                    ++++

                    Let me say, if more than a majority of these apply to you (6 or more) you have some problems and you need to work on these things. I don't know the actual stats on something like this but I suspect for millennials they can get a third of them (maybe) with most of them only being able to say they are adequate in 2 out of ten of these areas. One of the reasons I believe this is the case is that a lot of these kids have been so completely and utterly handicapped by their educations. If they have any degree in the humanities (with perhaps some exceptions like some people in linguistics, philosophy or cognitive science) then they are most likely a mush head. By mush head I mean someone so full of post modern garbage (derrida, foucault, Marxism and Gender theory) that they can't operate any more in an intellectual or professional environment except as some sort of PC-bot. They think that they have wonderful critical thinking skills, until that something in the real world actually involves that, they think they practice logic really well until they are faced with anything that involves applying a little logic (chess for example), they think they understand the nature of probability and odds, until they are faced with anything that involves applying a little probability or study of odds (poker fro example).

                    So, if you are a millennial and you have the intestinal fortitude to actually say you may have something wrong with you there are many people that can help, you just got to ask and be willing to put in some work. But don't forget these are the kids that threw their hands up in the air with regards to math and decided to do these programs because they thought they could avoid it. Let me tell you something kids, the future belongs to those who can do math.

                    For my part I guess I am a millennial (sort of, born in 1981) but I do pretty good on that questionnaire i just posted (working on two rather than seven of those things)...I don't know everyone is different I guess.

                    Maybe our new slogan should be 'NO MO POMO' as in 'no more postmodern' cause this stuff is toxic to you ability to think.

                    anyway best wishes to all my brothers

                    stay classy

                    Dini
                    Look, I really wish I didn't have to be as ageist as I was. But I have a lot of masonry work going on at my job site right now. When I compare the capabilities of the old masons, guys in their late 50's, 60's and yes 70's to guys in their 20's there is no contest. The guy in his 70's can do 3x the work of the guys in their 20's. I would love to attribute this to job skills, but it is not. Spreading mud, laying a brick, making sure it is straight is not exactly rocket science. No one had to go to school to learn how to do this job.

                    The fact of the matter is, young people are not getting upwardly mobile jobs, because an overwhelming sense of entitlement. The woman you know who is arguing about the need to ensure women get paid more. That sense of entitlement, the idea that she deserves better than what she has, is literally the psychological construct that prevents her from getting more. If that was not in her way, she would simply go out and get a better job. If she can't get a better job than she has, then she is being paid market value for her labor. Period. (sorry to go all old school dad on you, but facts are facts.)

                    No economic theory, social construction of gender or anything else is needed to explain that.

                    Say I had a piece of real estate. I can get it apprised at anything I want. The appraised value has literally nothing to do with the market value of the house. The value of the house is what I can sell it for. Back during the real-estate bubble you could get house appraisals that were crazy. Look what happened when we let that bubble of expectations grow out of demand of all reality... Total economic collapse. Right now there is a bubble in labor. Labor is worth a lot less than people generally think it is.

                    We should have let the younger generations be the victims of bullies a lot more than they are. Then they would have developed some basic insecurities. I guarantee if we had allowed more bullying millennials would have better hygiene.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Alison Tieman's Solution to the Kobayashi Maru...

                      Those are some good arguments. You might also want to check out an excellent video produced by Alison Tieman, called "Defeating the Feminist Frame: The Wage Gap," which takes a different approach to debunking the Wage Gap Myth. She argues that it is "futile" to attempt to disprove the existence of a wage gap, and that we should "instead attack the unproven premise underlying the feminst wage-gap argument ... [which is] that a wage gap is indicative of disenfranchisement, in and of itself." In other words, feminists must first be able to prove the premise, before a discussion about whether or not a wage gap even exists can take place. Using this approach shifts the burden of proof to them, putting you in control of the discussion, and thwarts their attempts to "drag you into the reeds," as Alison puts it.

                      I've only had the opportunity to use this approach twice, but it works, especially when you bring up Alison's second point, which concerns itself with who gets to spend the wages men make.

                      The video is only two minutes and thirty-four seconds long, but it's packed with good info, though you may need to listen to it a few times to fully wrap your head around it.

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zZq77IvWF3o
                      Last edited by Zane; 11-17-2014, 06:10 AM.
                      "I am a male chauvinist. Proudly." — Ayn Rand

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Obviously when arguing with a woman, you don't want to lose your cool. When you do this you raise the level of aggression in the discussion, and once a woman sees this they're likely to play the victim card. And if there's other women or men around this can turn into a disaster for you.

                        When you argue with a woman, I think it's important to understand that you are as important as her, and that you're as entitled to express your views as she is. In addition what determines the value of your argument is logic. Have you thought through what you're saying? If you have and it makes sense, then it's a good point and deserves to be heard. If on the other hand the premise of your argument is 'I've got a vagina (or a penis) and that makes me right,' then it's unlikely you've considered the issue in depth.

                        I see this all the time when I argue with women, especially when it's about gender equality. Women believe when they're talking with a man about gender equality they have a monopoly on the discussion. They will write off your views off as being cruel, insensitive and misogynistic. Well here's the thing. Anyone who does this, their entire world view is bullshit. They're essentially saying, “I've got a vagina whereas you've just got a lowly penis. And that means I'm right and you're wrong.”

                        Their perspective is ridiculous. I think it's important to call out anyone who has such a stupid world view. If they're still in the argument after this point, and most fail at this hurdle, then you can argue logically against any further points they make.
                        Last edited by Jonesey505; 11-17-2014, 11:01 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X