I need help with my upcoming assignment.

griii2 · 2026-04-28T18:54:51+00:00

Don't do it, it can have dire consequences for your reputation and career.

If you have to do it, be well prepared.

Taking points:

Come with a coherent strategy - you don't want to change their opinion on everything, you want to convince them of a single thing: that feminism has a problem with hate against men. (It may feel like too little, but trust me, that would be a huge win.)
You criticize feminism, not equal rights. Feminism is not the same as equal rights. You support equal rights, and that is why you criticize feminism.
You don't need feminism to be beneficial for men - you want feminism to stop hurting men, that is all.

2.1. No, equality is not hurting men, misnadry is. Feminist misandry is not equal rights.

2.2. No, equal rights are not a zero-sum game. By talking about men's rights, you are not taking away from women's rights.

Choose only one subject: hate against men. Mainstream feminism is full of hate against men. Choose some examples from here, memorize them, spit them like a firehose: Dear feminist guests: mainstream feminism is a hate group - If you identify as a feminist and don't hate men, you are the fringe : r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
No, that is not a loud minority or "not true feminists". Those are feminist leaders, icons, and decorated authors with large feminist followings. "They are truer feminists than you."
While there are endless examples of feminist hate against men, no important feminist has ever condemned feminist hate of men. No, not even bell hooks (she was a sexist too). This is one of the strongest arguments - feminists never condemn the hate of men

5.1. This is the only exception that exists: Pro-pedophile feminist Camille Paglia criticized chronic anti-male feminist rhetoric : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic. They won't know, ignore it.

5.2. In the right places, instead of "feminist misandry", say "feminist sexism". They hate to hear it.

Avoid discussing false rape accusations altogether. It is a dangerous ground.
Avoid discussing why feminism is necessary and what feminism has achieved for women's rights. You are talking about feminist hate of men here and now.
"Misandry hurts men's feelings, misogyny kills women." - Don't push back on this - acknowledge that they admitted they hate men. If they got here, you won.
"Women have the right to be angry." - Generalizing a group of people based on immutable characteristics is always bad. Hate or anger against a whole group is called racism, or homophobia, or xenophobia - or in this case, sexism.

PS:

Famous feminists and their quotes you should memorize:

- "Feminist icon" Andrea Dworkin just wouldn't stop hating and demonizing men : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Leader of second-wave feminism Gloria Steinem glorifies radical feminist men-hating : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Venerated feminist researcher and professor Mary Koss argues that men being raped by women is not rape, just "unwanted contact" : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Feminist activist Robin Morgan professed racism, man-hating, called all sex not initiated by women rape and many more. Later she was listed as one of BBC's 100 Women. : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- "A seminal influence on second-wave feminism," Kate Millett describes the goal of feminism : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Feminist scholar doubles down on hating all men in the Washington Post : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Feminist Icon of Impact and Force for Change Jameela Jamil compares "not-all-men" to a box with human shit : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Decorated feminist author and campaigner Jessica Taylor/Eaton argues misandry should not be a crime same as misogyny, questions whether it even exists : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

- Second most cited feminist scholar, Catharine A. MacKinnon, proposed to redefine rape in "gender equality terms", eliminating consent : r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic

Massive-Blueberry405 · 2026-04-28T18:38:21+00:00

You’re going to have to accept that you’re going into this disadvantaged. Not only are you outnumbered but most studies around these issues are feminist adjacent which often are misleading and have blind spots when it comes to men.

You’re going to have to do a lot of research about this. And you’re not going to be able to anticipate what they’ll be able to do.

I would focus on main areas.

Like feminist interpretation of history which removed the nuance that most men heavily were disadvantaged alongside women. That those gender roles were trade offs for both genders and not a one way street like feminism claims. That what they say is patriarchy is a minority group of men but also included some women too at the top that exploited everyone else below. It had much more to do with economic status, social groups etc than gender. As a noblewoman, empress, etc had more privilege and power than any common man ever did.

This assumption that men benefit from the system causes individualization of men’s issues instead of addressing the system that compounds these issues on men. How gender roles were removed from women but men’s are trapped in theirs. How challenging disparities that men face are framed as setbacks for women. How feminism despite being mainstream for 50 years still hasn’t made any meaningful attempt to help men. How feminism messaged men for decades on what to be better for women but never has done the equivalent to message women to be better to men. You can go into specific areas that you are more concerned about.

Keep in mind that you will need to have sources to back up your claims.

I think what you’re doing is very brave and you already have the right mindset. Don’t go there to win the debate. Go there to educate the audience on how men are struggling and that not only is feminism not helping them. Feminism is commonly at odds with improving men’s lives.

House-of-Raven · 2026-04-28T18:43:58+00:00

Come informed of the facts. Not just real ones, but also the ones they’ll use that are misleading and manipulated. Turn the things they say against them by pointing out where they went wrong with how they got to their conclusions. Do not argue within their framework (like patriarchy theory), reject it entirely. Arrive with concrete examples that they can’t ignore or misinterpret.

EL_overthetransom · 2026-04-28T18:57:52+00:00

Here are some of my saved threads, studies and news articles that might be of use:

Differences in Prevalence Rates of Sexual Assault of College Men and Women

“OTHER MEN are the ones who make light of male victims, not feminists!” A new study found the exact opposite is true and that on average they have gotten worse over time about this while men improved.

Dimarco’s Review of Men’s and Women’s Sexual Coercion Rates

The Last Taboo: Acknowledging Violent Behavior in Women

"Contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same-sex non-intimates. "

Statistics of female predators and abusers:

While just 35% of Britons identify as a feminist, 83% believe men and women should be equal in every way

Only helpline for male victims of abuse in UK is getting shut down by the government

Social experiment on violence

Throughout history, queens were more likely to wage war than kings

Up to 90% of Women in Lesbian Relationships Experience Domestic Abuse from their Female Partners

Misandry is real: a criminological reseach confirmed that both explicit and implicit misandry affects decisions in criminal justice system of the United States

whoisaname · 2026-04-28T20:14:09+00:00

This is more about tactics than anything:

With that many against you, and with the topic being feminism, you're going to have to be very aware of the debate tactic called gish gallop. This is where they will overload you with noise: essentially a bunch of semi true/semi false claims all at once that sound good on the surface, but can be disproven. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to try to disprove all of them at once, so you need to call it out for what it is, state that they're all false, and tell them to pick one. Don't try to respond to all of them. Then when they pick one, tear it apart with facts (this will require you to study a lot, unless you're allowed to have notes).

You will need to learn the history of feminism as well as them, better in reality. As you will want to know both the positives and the negatives. e.g. first wave feminism women's suffrage for the right to vote was good, but it was openly racist and at the exclusion of minorities (particularly black women).

I would also consistently point out that you're for egalitarianism and equality (list a few things like women's suffrage that make sense), but then point out that feminism, contrary to its claim, does nothing for inequality for men (think prison sentences, poor mental health support/high suicide rate, etc.), nor does it fight for equality in support on issues like IPV, where men are abused almost as much as women (the data is there, but you're going to need to find the studies to use), and sexual assault only recently starting to look at how men/boys are raped (made to penetrate), and that number, along with rapes, is not equal to sexual assault against women, but not far off. Yet men lack significant support in both of those areas.

Also, just reject the premise of most of their statements about feminism/patriarchy out of hand. Make them prove it. If they make a statement about patriarchy being bad (and also bad for men), ask them what there source for that is, and how victim blaming men by using a word that is male based as a pejorative is okay, and why isn't it viewed more as an issue of class becauce rich and powerful men and women used the common man as a disposable item (war, dangerous jobs, etc.). This will essentially be a form of gish gallop thrown back at them, and get them on the defensive. You might want prep to be able to do this kind of questioning on several topics so you can use it throughout the debate.

Acrobatic_Computer · 2026-04-28T22:28:40+00:00

What is the topic of the debate? You need to agree on a specific topic. Otherwise, the surface area here is absolutely massive.

I would also refuse to debate 3-on-1 and demand they pick one person. One person cannot out-prep a team of three, and even if they keep working together, it is much harder to prep one person, picked in advance, than to split the prep in three.

What format will the debate be? Who gets to go first? You need prepared remarks to fill your initial time so you don't have to think about what you're going to say. You cannot effectively create notes / a cheat sheet for responses if the topic is broad either.

Will there be a moderator? What will happen if someone goes over their allotted time? What are the rules of civility? Is accusing the other side of -isms allowed?

Debate is not about being right or wrong, but is a sport in and of itself, you need to understand exactly what is being asked of you. A debate about rape culture looks very different than a debate about the wage gap or a debate about if women are oppressed.

You need to have a specific strategy going in, and a good grasp of what angle will appeal to ordinary people. You, by virtue of posting here, aren't an ordinary person and cannot rely on yourself to just "know" if it'll make sense or not to people in the audience.

EDIT:

In general feminism is hard to debate because it is tough to nail down, it isn't particularly diverse, but rather a lot of the rhetoric is slippery and evades potential falsification.

brainquantum · 2026-04-29T12:17:23+00:00

Hello this is going to be a very challenging situation to handle. Well, I think, the point to emphasize when it comes to actual feminism is that the issue is not about whether we want equality between men/women but about the fact the feminism does not condemn discrimination against men and often tend to justify them or discard them for various reasons. Sometimes simply because they fear that giving some attention to men issues would weaken the support fighting in favor of women rights. An area, where there is a huge effet of current pro feminist atmosphere is in Education for instance, I wrote a piece here. It is known that boys and girl perform differently at school for various types of reasons, and here the idea was to summarize some key points often discussed, see here Boys and Young Men: What place is left for them within the Institutions of Education? : r/MensRights

Generally, to be better equipped when arguing with feminist activists and debating them, one should spend more time reading early feminist activists to better understand the real nature of this movement. As a side note, to have a broader overview of what type of ideology deeply shaped and influenced Feminist movements, see here for a recent post https://amerigentleman.blogspot.com/2014/12/feminist-extremism-and-misandry.html

Among notorious, not to say infamous early feminist thinkers, we have Valerie Solanas and her S.C.U.M manifesto, here S.C.U.M means Society for Cutting Up Men. The Introduction of this book is as follows: " LIFE IN this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident: the y (male) gene is an incomplete x (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." and the 90 pages of this manifesto is in the same vein (it can be found for free online actually).

Andrea Dworkin is also a "special" figure in this area, one of her famous quotes was "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.".

Last but not last, we have Sally Miller Gearhart who was a professor at San Francisco State university in the 1970s. In 1982, she wrote a paper called: “The Future – If There Is One – Is Female”. It’s subsequently been reprinted 100 times, in 13 languages. She gave a lecture on her vision for her improved future of the world. Her main point was: “The proportion of men must be reduced to, and maintained at, approximately 10% of the human race.” Now the "justification" for this point is based on the (unattended) consequences of birth and population control which took place around that time especially in countries like China which resulted in a severe unbalance between the proportion of men versus women, se here for a discussion and context surrounding this one: https://davetrott.co.uk/2020/03/the-law-of-unintended-consequences/ .

What is new, is that while previously many of these extreme ideas were essentially the preserve of a few rather radical activists, we are now seeing the same ideas discussed and recontextualized in journals and scientific publications written by researchers and scholars who possess the academic credentials that radical feminists lacked in their early days. Therefore, these extreme ideas are gaining not only in popularity, especially among young women of Generation Z, who are apparently becoming increasingly radical in their ideas and the methods they use to get what they want, but also in credibility, and that's not very good for the future...

Indeed, regarding the difference between men and women when it comes to radicalization, there is another article here with some data (focusing on young individuals, max 29-30 years old), it is a bit older, from 2024 but still interesting to see the trend: Young women are becoming more radical. Young men aren’t. [Pt 1] – the next wave

Another point is that currently, a lot of social issues encountered primarily by men are ignored and discarded leading to a lot of bad consequences. For instance, here it is an interesting read about the situation of young men who are incarcerated and the consequences of the incarceration on their psychological development: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10323979/

Important_Gap8612 · 2026-04-28T18:30:05+00:00

Well i will stared with fallacys to be vary of i will try to find some comments as a example

straw man: fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, rather than addressing the actual position.

https://www.reddit.com/r/everydaymisandry/comments/1s1u8yp/holy_strawman

Survivor-ship bias: is a logical error and form of selection bias where attention is focused on entities that passed a specific selection process ("survivors") while overlooking those that did not ("non-survivors").

Cherry picking: To choose in a highly selective manner; select only the best or most suitable of.

Apex fallacy: is an informal logical fallacy (specifically a form of hasty generalization or fallacy of composition) that occurs when the characteristics, privileges, or success of a group's most elite or visible members are erroneously generalized to represent the entire group.

Kafka trap: a rhetorical fallacy or manipulative device in which any denial of guilt is interpreted as proof of that guilt.

Ad hominem: (Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy where an argument is refuted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1stlw97/comment/ohvxodn

No true Scotsmen: or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").

CZ-7000 · 2026-04-28T19:58:30+00:00

Domestic and sexual violence victimization of men, and the feminist effort to obfuscate the findings of symmetry when it comes to perpetration, is the single most important point.

Just read Denise Hines’ work (in my opinion, the most important researcher in the field). Especially her studies about help-seeking experiences of abused men, as those show that domestic victim help services, which are almost entirely feminist, revictimize and constantly victim-blame them.

Also, her research shows that one of the most helpful places for abused men are men’s groups, thus disproving the notion that men can’t talk about being abused because other men mock them and don’t take them seriously.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denise-Hines

The second most important researcher is Alexandra Lysova, who has published a meta-analysis that shows the victimization and perpetration rates of men and women:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexandra-Lysova-2

David Dimarco did 4 relevant Studies about Sexual Violence Prevelance of Men:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Dimarco-2

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-28T23:34:55+00:00

To echo other commenters here, you need to be very prepared, and to know what you are talking about.

One of the key skills you’ll need to develop is learning to pick apart any claim for its constituent parts. If any one of your interlocutors makes a claim, then one of the first questions you need to ask yourself is “What series of things need to be true in order for that claim to be true?”

Question for the OP: What exactly is the format of the debate, is there a moderator, will there be an audience, and what is the actual debate question/claim around which the debate is framed?

rump_truck · 2026-04-29T01:51:51+00:00

As others have pointed out, they outnumber you, and the audience is likely going to be biased in their favor, so you're at a disadvantage.

If possible, I would recommend narrowing the scope. "Is feminism net positive or net negative for men?" is a gigantic surface area, and they can collectively cover more surface area than you can. If you can narrow your position to something like "Prominent feminists leaders have used institutional positions of power to systemically harm men" you're going to have a much easier time arguing that.

I would recommend focusing on the Duluth Model suppressing male victims of domestic violence and Mary Koss erasing male rape victims as much as you can. Institutional actions carry more weight than hateful comments, and those are some of the hardest institutional actions for them to defend. If they try to disavow them as not feminist, you can hit them with No True Scotsman. If they try to justify them, that's rape culture. Those are the strongest points we have over them.

Also, look up TheTinMen if you haven't already. He does an excellent job of backing his claims with data, though he often cites UK sources because that's where he's based. He focuses on areas where men are hurting, rather than antifeminism, but every time he delves into relational violence he inevitably has to confront feminist efforts to hide male victims and female perpetrators of relational violence. So you can borrow a lot of battle-tested rhetoric from him, and sources in the cases where he cites US data.

c0q0 · 2026-04-28T19:32:43+00:00

im assuming you already know, but if not, check out thetinmen on instagram

SpicyMarshmellow · 2026-04-28T19:39:24+00:00

I'll try to expand on this as I'm able, but I'm going on a trip in a couple days and won't have much time for about the next week.

But here's a serious suggestion: Let them talk. They will hang themselves. I guarantee it. They will attempt an attack attack attack approach. They will try to put you on the defensive and keep you there, with a presupposition of moral superiority. Don't defend yourself. Respond to their attacks with neutral, non-aggressive questions. Ask them to expand on their belief system, and let them speak. Give them every opportunity to clarify as much as possible. The majority of feminists cannot handle this. They cannot explain their belief system without revealing a basis in prejudice. They will inevitably say hateful things. Take note of the things they say. Write them down as you go. Stay cool and casual. If they talk too fast and you can't keep up, ask them calmly if they can repeat it. Then write it down. Then repeat their own words in closing, and ask the audience if they sincerely believe it's possible not to view such words as hate speech.

If I have time, I'll try to come up with some examples of what I mean.

fear_the_future · 2026-04-28T20:11:01+00:00

I would also recommend you not to do it. You have very little to gain and a lot to lose.

I dont just want to win this debate. I want to educate my audience.

That's a problem, because you don't win debates with facts.

My advice to you, in order not to humiliate yourself, is to watch a lot of Ben Shapiro debates and analyses thereof. You may not like the guy, but he is a master debater who has perfected the art of making college feminists look stupid. He has done a lot of your work for you. This video for example shows a few of the tricks he uses, some of which have also been recommended in other comments of this thread, like pushing for specifics when the opponent makes generalized statements. It should also be noted that Shapiro has charisma. If you don't have that presence in the room, they'll just talk all over you.

intothewild72 · 2026-04-29T11:45:00+00:00

Don't do it. You have nothing to win and everything to lose. You ruin your life and change nothing. They just yell over you, and there is no way you can prove anything. They just dismiss everything you say with extra noise. You can only debate in respectful environment where both sides have rights. Current time educational environment is not that. Just keep your head down, get your paper, and get out.

EDIT: Just one regular advice.

When they tell you something like "So, you are telling that ..."

Always answer "No, this is not what I said, let me paraphrase it in simpler terms" and then keep ironing exactly same point time after time. Just act like you are mature adult and they are 5 year olds throwing tantrum, they basically are.

Slave-Moralist · 2026-04-29T18:03:28+00:00

All three of them talk fast and are very articulate in their speech.

And... are you?

Because if you are not, they will chew you whole. Debates have never been won through arguments, they are won through agressivity, charisma, and who the debate moderators (if any) like more.

SquaredAndRooted · 2026-04-30T18:54:29+00:00

OP - your post has received lots of good responses and guidance. I don't know how much time you have but you could debate with ChatGPT as practice. It's trained on everything about feminism and acts like one too. It will be the perfect devil's advocate for your argument set.

Mickenfox · 2026-05-01T14:03:16+00:00

A lot of responses, but surprisingly no one mentions "hyperagency/hypoagency bias", IMO the biggest flaw with present day feminism and the source of most of its other problems. It essentially means treating male problems as something derived from their own actions or ideas, while treating women's problems as caused by society or the environment.

However, I don't know how amenable this is to debate since it's more about a general attitude. I also don't have any sources or even know if it has any better names, but maybe this can get you started if you search this sub.

Some examples:

A man is afraid to talk about his feelings to his wife. Feminism would frame this as "toxic masculinity", i.e. implicitly blaming his attitude. But it's hard to imagine they'd ever blame a woman who felt threatened by her husband.
The "pink tax" - the tendency for products marketed specifically toward women to be more expensive than those marketed toward men, is generally framed as companies just unilaterally raising prices on them. Never framed as women having "toxic femininity" and being willing to pay more for the same products in pink.
Or female prison abolitionism in the UK - an extreme example

AutoModerator · 2026-04-28T18:10:06+00:00

Thank you for posting to r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates. All new posts are held for manual review and may take up to 48 hours to be approved. Please don’t message the moderators, we’ll make sure to review your submission as soon as possible. If this is your first post, be sure to review our rules to ensure it meets our criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AdOtherwise3824 · 2026-04-28T19:36:56+00:00

So I don't have the time to collect sources, but I want to just give some general advice. They will likely leverage appeals to emotion or accusations against you. Even if that is not allowed in this debate format, they likely will get more of a pass. The key thing is to keep your cool and keep your demeanor approachable. The second you turn angry or defensive is when they'll pounce. Stay approachable and they can't leverage shoddy arguments against you.

If they talk fast, use that to catch them. It's likely they will contradict or try to dominate. You can counter that by calling out issues or by taking control by asking questions of them to answer. Get them to commit to specific beliefs to then turn against them, if you can.

One thing that can be very effective in a debate format is to fully acknowledge the body of evidence supporting their claims, but then to untangle the underlying assumptions and how it starts to undermine their claims. For example, it's hard to say men are the abusers when much of the research that are cited for that leverage crime statistics. The definition of rape often times biases against men and the criminal justice system is generally biased against men already. Research that looks more at the population, similar to how we study diseases (cite Straus and related Conflicts Tactics Scale studies using epidemiological sampling design), the picture turns into gender parity.

That's just one example of how the underlying assumptions of the soundbites they can use undermine their own argument. Try to anticipate those and have clean and clear ways of countering.

LnTc_Jenubis · 2026-04-29T16:50:31+00:00

You've already had a lot of great knowledge advice, so I'm going to zoom out a level and help you with debate mechanics instead. You likely know about some of these, but just in case you don't I want to give you the necessary tools to identify their dirty tricks and avoid walking into problems yourself.

The Gish Gallop

People who are fast and articulate like to do something called a "Gish Gallop" where they overwhelm you with several arguments all at once. The dirty trick to this is that they give you too many arguments to dismantle within your own allotted time. The way you fight this is to directly call that out: "You just made several different claims and I only have time to address one, so let's look at..." and choose their weakest point that you can easily dismantle.

They have two options: Continuing to Gish Gallop will allow them to feel like they absolutely obliterated you, but it also risks coming off as disingenuous to the audience, which is a victory for you. The other option is that they stop Gish Galloping and you don't have to deal with it.

Semantics

If they define Feminism as "The belief in equality", then hold them true to that definition. It doesn't matter if men are the reason for men's problems, it doesn't matter if women have it "worse", if they believe in equality, then they have to acknowledge that there are issues related to men's health and well-being. If they try to strawman with an example from the manosphere, remind them that "equality for all" includes them too. "All, except" is not equality.

My approach to this is to force them into a conversation about institutional and academic Feminism in practice. There is hard evidence of Feminist groups actively going against the "equality for all" message: The Duluth Model is the easiest, low-hanging fruit example you can use. You don't need 20 examples, blanket statements like "Equality for All" must be true 100% of the time in order for the blanket statement to be true. One example proves that isn't the case. Remind them that "Equality for all" might be the dictionary definition, but dictionaries don't write policies or allocate funding. People do.

Don't let them use the No True Scotsman Fallacy either; A movement cannot claim credit for all of its historical successes while completely disavowing the actions of its mainstream leaders and system failures. If the movement is a monolith for the good, it must be accountable for the bad. (Do NOT say or imply that women have issues taking accountability for their actions)

Be Proactive and Assertive

Don't let them be the first ones to bring up the Manosphere. You should do that. Do it in a way that shows you are looking at empirical data, nuance, and good-faith logical conclusions. In a different reply, I gave you a list of legitimate and respected organizations. Use examples from there to show that you know where the line between toxic internet culture and reality is. This not only removes a weapon from them, but it is a weapon for yourself. If they start going down the route of black pill and red pill ideologies, you can simply say "Wait I already said we both agree on this particular point. I thought we came here for a productive conversation, so let's get back to my actual claim."

Don't use soft words or phrases like "I feel as if" or "Probably". In the moment it will feel like you're being clever, but you're not trying to reach a middle ground with them, you're trying to expose their logical flaws. So be respectful, but don't hold back in your convictions.

Don't Only Defend, Also Attack

Given how you described your opponents, they will think that getting louder, speaking over you, and providing emotionally charged anecdotes will be good enough to defend their claims. It isn't, and the audience can be swayed fairly easily by just having some decorum.

Use the Socratic Method: If they have contradicted themselves, start by summarizing their most recent statement and ask them to verbally agree to it. Then apply it to a previous statement where that logic clearly fails. It forces them to either admit hypocrisy or backtrack, move the goalposts, etc. to which you can easily call that out as well.

Demand empirical consistency: If they make a sweeping claim about systemic disadvantages, calmly ask for the empirical, peer-reviewed metrics they are using to reach that conclusion. If it is systemic, then it must be measurable by definition. Keep in mind that they can and likely will hold you to the same standard. The difference is that you'll likely be better-equipped to speak to yours than they are to theirs.

Attack the Methodology, not the Conclusion: When presented a study that concludes a ridiculous stat like "95% of men have admitted to committing sexual assault in their lifetime" then the easiest way to prove that statistic wrong is to question the methodology in the study. If the study being quoted relies entirely on a self-reported online survey posted in a specific echo-chamber forum, then the 95% statistic only applies to that forum, not the general population. If the sample is skewed, the conclusion is entirely invalid, regardless of how passionately they argue it.

Just in case it doesn't immediately stick out, a study that focuses solely on the experience of women but makes no effort to compare it against the experience of men cannot be used to prove systemic or institutional inequality. It can only be used to prove that a problem is real for women, but it does not prove that it is not a problem for men.

If the methodology is flawed, then the conclusion is flawed, regardless of how passionately they argue it. Perhaps research common methodological critiques in general academia so you can focus on how to quickly spot the flaws instead of memorizing every study ever performed.

And on a final note, be prepared for wage gap discourse, but try to steer the conversation away from it. In general, no one can prove that all variables are equal, except for gender, for Employee A and Employee B. There is no methodology in the world sophisticated enough to account for the variables. But audiences are socially biased to feel sympathy for women about this because the numbers look convincing, and every normal person understands financial struggles. It's a hard argument to disprove.

Instead, you can tactfully deflect with relative ease. An example exchange may look like the following:

Them: "The wage gap between men and women may have shrunk, but it still exists."

You: "How do we account for men making less than other men in the same positions?"

Their response doesn't really matter since you're going to handle all responses the same way. Sometimes they say "That's just the actual difference between men". If so, you should respond with:

You: "But I'm asking you why you think that gap between men exists. If they work the same job, have the same responsibilities, and are held to the same standards as each other, they should have equal pay. But they don't."

They tend to say something like tenure, education, or skillset. You can simply reply:

You: "Do you have a study for that?"

Them: "No, I don't"

Because the few that do exist don't corroborate the narrative that a wage gap exists solely on gender. Now you close it out:

You: "That's because correlation is not causation. The fact that a wage gap exists between Employee A and Employee B only proves that a wage gap exists between Employee A and Employee B. It does not tell us why that wage gap exists. Next Claim."

Just remember to keep your cool, don't let them get under your skin, and remain sharp. Control the pacing and flow of the conversation and their emotional outbursts will dismantle themselves for any reasonable audience.

azazelcrowley · 2026-04-30T05:56:00+00:00

Here's what I would do;

The debate will revolve around what "Beneficial" means and attempting to seize that ground. You must be aware of the ground the debate is fought on in order to stand a chance given the disadvantages you've laid out.

It is possible to contest them on their own terms and point out the fallacies and such they will use to justify them, however, I would instead recommend questioning the premise by which they can claim to know what "Benefits men" means better than Men as a class do, and note that this is paternalistic and seems to discount mens epistemological resources or input as stakeholders.

You can then simply note that men, by and large, either reject feminism actively or passively and so clearly do not see it as beneficial to them.

You can then counter any attempts they make to claim feminism is beneficial by pointing out that, whatever framework of beneficial they are using, men clearly do not share it, and there is no reason their interests should be considered less valid.

You can then begin to talk about mens priorities and issues.

If the feminist counters that feminists address those issues you can again return to the epistemological point and note that they do not address them to mens satisfaction.

Attempt to frame the debate around "Who decides what is beneficial to men, men as a class, or feminists?".

You can continually return to this point to stonewall their talking points through "That's all very interesting, but men don't appear to agree, and it seems to me they should decide what matters/how this issue works", then articulate a mens issue or how it's perceived as an example.

In this fashion you don't have to engage with their arguments at all and you can both talk past eachother, but you will be justified in doing so since you have questioned the fundamental epistemology upon which feminists advance their perspective, and it is on shakey ground.

In this fashion each round can be dominated by trading blows on specific interpretations and issues, but you can summarize with;

"We've discussed the prevalence of men's issues here today from two different perspectives. What I wish to again highlight is a principle I consider self-evident. Men as stakeholders ought to determine what their own interests are and how to pursue them, not have it done on their behalf. Men have weighed and measured feminism and found it wanting. Their verdict is in. The only question is whether you accept that verdict, or determine that men's self-determination does not matter to you.".

Or something. Be prepared with polling data.

ArcPainter · 2026-04-30T16:42:41+00:00

Don't do it.

But maybe some stuff in this old write-up of mine could help:

"Men don't care about men," or how the left excuses their ignorance and justification of anti-male policy and attitudes

Two weeks ago on the stream Kafka made a comment about MRA's winging (as his tone and framing was entirely dismissive) about the lack of homeless shelters for men comparatively to women; if that's even the case..

Go to 1:12

https://youtu.be/Ks4G7mAuDNQ?si=5z178KlbCRILV1Q2

In explanation of the above Kafka said "Well men don't care about men," to say there's no barrier to support for men other than male inadequacy, but as this comment under that video responds, it's not so simple:

"1:40 its because to open these resources you need funding and making male specific spaces is not popular politically or pubically. Idk what this "its just men dont care about men" argument comes from.

People dont care about other people most of the time which is something that needs to change."

1) Men don't have the in-group bias we're alleged to practice in upholding the patriarchy, but I wouldn't frame that as a "lack of care," for men.

(I also wouldn't say women have a stronger in-group bias in all areas; I think the assumption of bias as the first link below gets into, is a major issue)

https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/how-would-you-know-if-you-are-discriminating-against-men

https://jmp.sh/ZG7izTlA

Men have obligations to their families/in the work space that historically that have made civic engagement, communally, not as high of a calling compared to civic engagement as leaders (i.e elected officials).

In that absence women make up much of the machine that dictates the direction of funding that would build the aforementioned shelters as an example of public policy.

And it's in that lack of an in-group bias and the protective framework that's as core to patriarchy as notions of possession, that male leaders will often leave men and boys out to dry politically.

With no pushback from feminists as often feminist interests are informed by patriarchal norms they tactically approve of; that "lack of in-group bias?"

It's weaponized to impugn men with no recognition of how it informs pro-female policy, denied when suitable, and female collective behavior is similarly recognized and denied to suit the present argument.

The assumptions the above weaponization often rest on also represent the obstacles to support being extended to men.

Such as the assumption that male disgust for the feminine is what keeps men from caring positions.

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-men-occupations-women.html

Meanwhile in reality men fled jobs like daycare after false accusations bloomed during the satanic panic; this is a powerful statistical representation of that:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1997.00019.x

https://www.scribd.com/document/567628587/Male-caregivers-in-child-daycare-why-so-few

The phys.org article is the sort of pop feminist pontificating I'll see all the time about male motivations that may have truth to it but is massively overblown and ultimately unhelpful; things like that going unchallenged is a problem.

The material reality I mentioned in caring for a family is also a relevant historical factor, that motivates men to hire paying occupations.

And it could be claimed that the caring positions are paid less due to feminine coded work being seen as lesser, but that's reductionist analysis.

This is a clip from Richard Reeves, a male advocate hailing from the Brookings Institute, recent Melinda Gates Grant recipient, and author placed on Obama's most recent reading list:

https://imgur.com/a/o5Vi84s

He's detailing the below, a time when Barack Obama faced pushback from activists, academics, and politicians around targeting support to boys specifically (not that his program was ideal in framing either); support that had been extended to girls with a commission created in his first administration.

Emphasizing how often gender advocacy is seen as "zero sum," and how advocacy for girls and women can lead to acts against support for men and boys.

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/my-brother-s-keeper-initiative-faces-calls-for-inclusion-of-girls

And as Reeves details you will be opposed as targeted support for boys often involves challenging entrenched academic beliefs that are empirically shaky, you'll be targeted by "your side."

Male advocates are judged by the lowest common denominator commenter, people who may often phrase things petulantly/stupidly, like many Kafka may have seen.

But they'll often only stand out as liberal and left leaning communties stamp out constructive male advocacy as a rule; and on the other end, feminists aren't judged by even the women who's theories shape institutions globally.

I.e Kimberle Crenshaw, the coiner of intersectionality who led the charge against Obama's commission.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/opinion/Kimberl-Williams-Crenshaw-My-Brothers-Keeper-Ignores-Young-Black-Women.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Someone who denies the empirical reality black boys and girls exist in comparatively, and plays loose with stats as a habit.

Here she is making absurd claims around police killing of black women:

https://xcancel.com/sandylocks/status/1818334908382588985

And a tweet from Dr.Tommy J Curry that addresses her twisting the stats to paint black girls as vulnerable as black boys are within public education to over-policing and educational neglect:

https://imgur.com/a/9gENlLJ

Scroll these headlines to see the effects of how she frames black boys and girls respective suffering:

This is an obstacle for targeted support to boys that isn't based on a lack of care from men.

Personally as a black man™ I recognize that without the sympathy of the "dominant class" historically, my people would remain oppressed.

I live in a society, and in a society what I do effects you and what you do effects me; the status quo we exist in where feminist research and activism is seen as if in a vacuum and not something that could negatively impact men in society isn't how things really are.

Women don't have the services they do simply because women support women, they do because men in large amounts support women supporting women and that's a good thing; but for some reason feminist strides historically are framed as if unilaterally railing against men rather than collaborative.

Other shit:

In a world with an incredibly limited amount of research into male victimization (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10135558/) I'm going to note the experiences of the people at the top of the field as powerful refutations of nothing standing in the way of support going to men.

Michelle Elliot of Kidscape, a former chair within the World Health Organization and a deeply credible woman, victim advocate, and non-"MRA" strawman.

She's been awarded by the Queen and written one of if not the seminal book on female sexual abuse of children; her biggest opps were other feminists.

https://youtu.be/1WdTAJ9_IY0?si=5lJ0UWmQprtMIVBd

Dr.Tommy J Curry who has done the best research in the world on the sexual victimization of black boys; he was recently highlighted by BBC, and has been blurbed by Richard Reeves discussing some of the backlash he's faced in academia, that I would say gatekeeps black men from studying our own existence:

https://www.forestoftherain.net/dr-tommy-j-curry-responds-to-facebook-questions-about-his-book-man-not.html

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/she-touched-me-five-snapshots-of-adult-sexual-violations-of-black

Blauwpetje · 2026-05-03T16:24:27+00:00

https://boysinitiative.org/blog-posts/for-every-100-girls-2023/

Blauwpetje · 2026-05-03T16:27:49+00:00

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/meet-the-women-worried-about-metoo/articleshow/66349450.cms

Blauwpetje · 2026-05-03T16:29:12+00:00

https://www.amazon.nl/How-Democrats-Can-Back-Understanding/dp/B0D8CRPT6F

TheMostDivineOne · 2026-04-28T21:00:24+00:00

Look up Karen Straughan’s writing on “not a real feminist”

Morpherman · 2026-04-29T05:47:12+00:00

I don't just want to win this debate.

You are are going to lose. If your goal is to argue feminism bad, you will lose. If your goal is to advocate that the modern day feminism movement has failed and needs to change, that is a position you can back.

Have a foundation of truths you can build on.

Comments