Feminists can argue, almost within the same sentence that women are exactly equal to men and therefore should have all the same rights and that women are perpetual victims requiring special privileges in law, business, relationships and the home. Direct confrontation with an opinion so evidently based on wanting it to be true rather than the objective facts will serve only to compact it into a harder, more rigid dogma.

The key is to ask questions, and to keep asking questions to gather evidence in advance. Thus, in order to avoid the defences "not all women are like that" and "not all feminists are like that", it is necessary to have asked sufficient questions in advance to show unequivocally that your interlocutor is definitely "like that."

The child-like instinct when arguing is to dispute tooth-and-nail every last point. This results in an argument of the is/isn't type. It is far more effective simply to gather information before making any statements. If you can get an answer to questions like the following you are well on your way to a crushing victory:

  1. Is it right that when a ship sinks, priority should be given to women over men to help them survive? (A positive answer to this will later undermine all arguments along the lines of "we demand equality because we are the same" or "feminism is about equality between the sexes.")
  2. To gather further evidence along these lines, questions about whether stat rapes committed by women should be punished the same as those committed by men are likely to show that feminists, at least the one you are talking to, do not believe in equality (unless it suits them.) 3.. Should paternity fraud be a crime? A positive answer to this shows your interlocutor is a reasonable person and a change of tack to one of agreeable conversation is a good move. A negative answer should lead to more questions as to why a fraud which is so costly, in every sense of the word, to its victim, not to mention not being in the best interests of the child should be permitted with impunity. Keep asking the questions and gathering the evidence.
  3. Should a boy who is statutorily raped have to pay maintenance?
  4. Should a man have to pay maintenance on a child which he did not which to father and which he did not want? (just keep asking the questions)
  5. Should a woman who plans the murder of her husband ever be able to claim that his abuse had led her to lose control and thus she was not responsible for her actions? What about an abused man who plans the murder of his wife? (If she says men don't get abused, don't get drawn into the argument, just state it as a hypothetical question) 7. Should night-clubs be allowed to sell the same drinks at different prices or charge different entry fees depending on the sex of the purchaser? (A positive answer to this one leads inevitably to the establishment of the fact that your interlocutor believes in gender roles.) Should men pay on dates? (same thing)

Just keep asking, asking and asking more. I will not list any more questions, but you should ask a lot more than the seven listed. You will see below, when I finally suggest lines of argument that weaknesses are apparent because some of the evidence is missing because the necessary questions were not asked in advance. The practice of doing nothing but asking questions and listening to the answers, in itself, is a useful discipline, training you to control your emotions (if you feel emotional about this sort of thing), ability to listen carefully and to organise arguments. The longer you do nothing but question, the longer you have to plan any statements you are going to make. Finally, when you have gathered enough information, it is still not necessary to make any statements. You can simply ask further questions:

"Given that you think (men should pay on dates, women should have priority in lifeboats, should be paid for on dates, should have the sole discretion in matters of reproduction etc.) why do you also argue that men and women are the same and that any pay gap must necessarily be the result of discrimination?"

"If men and women are the same (should have asked questions about affirmative action to balance numbers here and idea that depends on the candidates be equal except when discrimination comes into play) why is male on female stat rape deserving of more serious punishment than female on male stat rape?"

"If a woman can be held not responsible for her actions because of her domestic situation, while a man must be held accountable, how can the two sexes be deemed equal in matters of justice and politics?"

By only asking questions, you allow no opportunity to be attacked while opening up the other to all the ramifications of her statements. You might also, just possibly, lead her to see the inherent contradictions and bias in her thinking as she will have got there herself on the basis of her own answers. An onlooker is highly likely to see your point of view rather than hers.