Best Practices for Debating Feminists

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n · 2020-03-11T15:03:33+00:00

This is a very good read. A clear and useful guide to dealing not just with feminists but any debate or doscussion in general.

genkernels · 2020-03-11T20:09:05+00:00

Amazing article. One caveat I offer up for discussion however is that this is all extremely good advice for persuading feminists persisting in their feminism, but often in a debate that is precisely what one doesn't want to do and that changes things a bit.

For instance, it is not okay to hold someone accountable for something they didn't do, but often liberal feminists play a little game off of radical feminists with phrases like "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" or "the future is female", which mean radfem things when they talk around radfems, but are powerless, simple ideas when they are debating them.

Similarly, while "When explaining men’s issues, mention how they affect poor or minority men." is great for sympathy and that does affect persuasiveness dramatically, I'm very wary of that because of how much that approach lends itself to encouraging people towards the racist, sexist ideology that is intersectionality.

Finally, some kinds of hostility are pretty bad, but there are a sorts of hostility that can be useful in moderation. This isn't exhaustive, but I'll argue a few:

Snark is one, and though not usually very useful can still be useful once in a conversation. It is easiest employed not to help convince someone on at topic, but to invoke the agreement of others. However, it still can be used in a persuasive manner when employed carefully (but in a serious context like gender debate relies heavily on sacrificing the interlocutor for the sake of the audience), but it's complicated. It is naturally dismissive in nature, so you can think of it as applying for summary judgement on an argument or an appeal to the ridiculousness of a thing. 73 cent figure? "Oh yes, people who work less get paid less". "Okay, how many cents does a woman make compared to a man who works the same hours as her? What's the number? Why did you say 73 cents in the first place?" (I believe there's a study out there that compares the wages of young people and found that number to be over 100, but idk enough to go find it). Normally people don't take an appeal to ridiculousness well, but there are situations in which it is unusually effective. Double-standards that are particularly egregious can be vulnerable to getting snarked at and moving on.
Being offended can be very useful when something particularly sexist or racist is said, so long as at the offense taken is explained and is not so egregious that no one the audience talks to can understand. Being offended can even be useful if no one in the audience understand the offense because many feminist ideas are so offensive that the feminists regularly receive that reaction from people. If you can explain and grant context to someone else's offense, that becomes persuasive.
Hostilely accusing the interlocutor of a vice. There's a way to do this nicely, but sometimes the more persuasive tactic is the attack version. Here's Crowder doing it (from the MR sub) (this is on top of earlier where he said the guy was "Don Quixote tilting at windmills") accusing a guy of hurting rape victims, being stupid, and destroying campus dialogue. He knows he's not going to get through to the guy, but there is little doubt for me that that fellow's approach will change for the better next time he gets into an argument, and moreover those accusations can resonate with the audience. Note that this, while in a hostile tone, is still very muted. People react extremely severely to male hostility so while it is possible to be less reserved than Crowder is here, less is more when it comes to this approach.

mewacketergi · 2020-03-11T23:18:51+00:00

This is a good resource. Thank you for sharing, u/CellGel1!

Sometimes “feminism is not a monolith” is used in an obscurantist way to deny that feminism is cohesive enough to oppose (which, if taken seriously, raises the question of whether feminism is cohesive enough to support).

This is an extremely good point on a double-standard I've been trying to draw attention to for a long time.

EDIT:

There are a few small inaccuracies, though.

Women are more likely than men to be feminists, but plenty of men still are feminists, and plenty of women aren’t (Washington Post).

Majority of women aren't feminists even at the superficial level of self-identifying as such in the surveys, and much fewer are feminists enough to have actually read any of their theory, or done any activism. Male feminists are just a statistical error, brought up only to make a point.

EDIT:

This is pretty amazingly well-written: https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/

thereslcjg2000 · 2020-03-11T16:09:49+00:00

That’s a very good piece. Clearly this writer has a very strong understanding of the feminist movement.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2020-03-12T12:04:03+00:00

3.1: be aware that no matter how carefully crafted your response they will still reject anything that contradicts their religion, call you a misogynist, and end the conversation.

LeftNatTay · 2020-03-11T19:09:14+00:00

That's a very good piece

CoffeehasSentience · 2020-03-11T20:00:52+00:00

This guy writes one of the best blogs about gender dynamics and their issues I've seen. Thanks for bringing it up.

Comments