Debating With Arsehole Men: need a how-to guide!

[KatLovesCats]

Title a bit tongue-in-cheek

When I was a teenager I consistently tried to stand up for my beliefs against a father who shouted down opinions that differed from his (right-leaning and often hideous) views. I've come to view this as a kind of baptism-by-fire, and am now extremely proud of teenaged-girl-me for having the strength to continually try in the face of quite extreme male aggression (he stopped short of hitting me but wanted to - fist in face etc - and if he had resorted to physical violence I have no doubt that I would no longer have stood up to him).

I used to get very upset trying to 'debate' issues with men - usually those who were indifferent to women's or LGBTQ rights - and often cried, which of course they used against me - that tired old 'emotions are weak' bollocks. Nowadays I don't and on the mercifully rare occasion these things happen I am articulate and firm in a way that I look back on afterwards and can't believe I managed it

But online this eludes me. I generally avoid debating online as it's just banging your head against a brick wall and generally unhelpful/doesn't actually achieve anything other than me become stressed/upset and them remaining a smug arsehole.

I don't want to be unemotional about issues that matter to me. Now I just point out why I am that way - that what for them is hypothetical is my lived experience - but it annoys the fuck out of me. For those who regularly wade into the fire: how do you stay heartened? I find it exhausting and often take days to recover from the stress of it which leads me to ignore and not challenge far more often than I would like. I really don't get into these debates often as I can't be doing with the stress, but I will when I feel I have to!

TL;DR: how do you find the strength to continually deal with arsehole men and counter the 'stop being emotional/why can't you debate this coldly and logically' arse-wipery?

This post has been inspired by a white middle-class "Christian" man saying he's fed up of "people whinging" about Trump and saying "he was fairly elected, stop moaning about it" this type of shit rarely happens as I generally just remove these people from my Facebook but I am genuinely surprised at this coming from this person.

Say your piece and then ignore them. Most of them are deadly dull anyway and there will be more interesting people to chat with.

It's not just about changing the minds of ignorant people here (which is what we're mostly talking about, men who spout forth on women's issues without having any idea about them). It's about not letting misinformation and ignorance go unchallenged.

^^yes, this. It's not so much wanting to change their mind but awareness of other people reading and showing a challenge to it. I don't think there's a way of doing it without endless frustration though, other than adopting a full ducks-back philosophy (I've had a partial ducks-back philosophy up to this point).

You almost never get people's minds to change in internet discussions. I was reading several years ago that it IS possible but the chances of any movement in position will only happen early on in a thread. The longer a thread goes on the less and less likely anyone is to change their minds. There are usually a few strong contributors to a thread who lay out their position then entrench then attack/defend as nauseum.

The value I find is to play to the gallery. A lot of people read rather than contribute and if you are arguing for truth, reason and human decency you are moving the needle in the right direction, just rarely if ever the person you are debating with.

We must all be on guard against bigotry, and not just the obvious ones like sexism/ racism. Often the most unexamined and significant bigotries is political bigotry. We are all leaving with the repercussions of not engaging with an open mind with our political opponents.

I think for that we need a more inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial approach to debate. That is rather than seeing each other in competition even if we are politically opposed we recognize our common and shared humanity and seek to explore and analyze truth as a collective effort rather than a win/lose proposition.

I can only guesstimate this, but I say I have learnt just as much from people I disagree with as those I do. It might not be enough to make me come over entirely to their position, but often they bring up facts and perspectives I either didn't know or hadn't considered.

My only problem is the more information I take on the harder it is to reach a hard position on an issue. I all to often feel I either don't know enough or the situation under discussion is way too complex for an easy conclusion. What grinds my gears a bit is when I'm debating with someone who as time goes it becomes apparent they have committed far less energy and time to thinking critically on an issue yet they are 1000% more sure than I am in their conclusions. Not to be confused with people who I differ on who have really thought about it. In fact I find it equally frustrating when people agree with me on the basis of less data and analysis.

I know I am quite combative and to some extent I enjoy a cut and thrust debate and will challenge anything I believe to be wrong and damaging. I am self-aware enough to know that it can alienate more moderate people though so I do try not to get sucked in more than necessary not always successfully

it becomes apparent they have committed far less energy and time to thinking critically on an issue yet they are 1000% more sure than I am in their conclusions

I've found this a lot too, Dervel - the older and wiser I get the more so. It also makes it harder to come across as strong as opposed to wishy-washy which cements their notion of you as sensitive/weak/hysterical

"The OP was referencing a specific type of exchange which happens frequently between a certain type of man, IME either left or right wing, and can be "male feminist" or MRA, who is entirely unaware of their male privilege when they "debate" things with women."

I think that's the problem - that lack of awareness.

Those angry men are on a spectrum, with some truly horrid misogynists at one extreme; but at the other there are men who can get angry and defensive in a more undestandable, although not entirely excusable, way.

The problem with online debate is that everything gets personalized, making it difficult for people to stand back and see the bigger picture.

What I mean is that an individual man might react to an assertion that he has privilege or is part of a problem very defensively. 'I am living on a horrible estate with no job and no prospects' he might think. 'What privelige do I have?'. He might even asume the women he is talking to to be affluent and well-educated - a person with much more opportunity and power than him.

Of course the feminist might not mean that he personally has privilege, only that women very generally lack certain priveliges that men, very generally, do have. But because a distinction between a general state of affairs and one man's experience has not been made clear, he is unable to step outside of his own experience and see things from a woman's point of view. He is a man so he doesn't know what it is like to suffer sexual assault or be demeaned in the way she may have been. Conversely, sometimes the feminist might find it hard to see things from the man's point of view.

We all struggle to inhabit another person's experience.

Please do not think I am in any way defending misogynist trolls and woman haters. All I am saying is that on a certain level of debate I can see how wires get crossed - especially where very socially or economically disadvantaged men are concerned.

All men are bastards, eh?

so all women are dumb bimbos obsessed with handbags?

No . some are but not all. The sexism on here would not be allowed the other way.

I agree with you Dervel and acknowledge that your approach is better overall for winning hearts and minds. But I think a bit of anger and sharp focus sometimes is necessary and valuable.

And the few times I have managed to change people's minds with my arguments were quite satisfying. I'm only human

This is a helpful thread as I have to deal with some senior (..of course..) men like this at work. They can't seem to hear me unless I am agreeing with them. They talk over me all the time.
When I once said that I was just wanting to finish my short point, after being interrupted repeatedly, they walked off angrily.

Yes JosefK - I try to avoid mentioning privilege in these scenarios for that very reason!

venus I find myself agreeing with 99% of what you post, so we are clearly on the same wavelength

PussyHat so unbelievably irritating and not at all uncommon, unfortunately I'm glad the thread is helping you!

Josef, i think it's relevant to look at and reference issues of male privilege on the feminism board. It's central to the concept of feminism. It's class analysis, and one of many different ways of examining complex issues.

But sexual assault and male violence against women is most definitely a feminist, gendered issue. I am not suggesting shouting "check your privilege" at people because too often that is used as a means of shutting people down. I am saying that male privilege is an important element of how many men discuss things with women.

Sometimes, it's a pigeon-chessboard moment

www.funnybits.mobi/2014/03/arguing-with-idiots-is-like-playing.html

I don't think Josef was saying it should be part of discourse here or anywhere - it absolutely should be - but more that by saying he same thing but avoiding the word 'privilege' - which is taken differently by those not involved in this area - you may get a more receptive audience (if that's your goal)?

*shouldn't be part of the discourse

Well ok I don't really get male privilege, and I am also left somewhat in the dark on precisely what is or isn't patriarchal.

However in my youth I worked retail, and what a lot of women report in terms of general treatment sounds a little bit analagous to that. I'm expected to be polite at all times even in the face of abuse (and to not be invited more). People naturally assume you are stupid and act accordingly. Oh and also you don't get paid very much. So please don't take this as I 'get' women's lived experiences, I just have a psychological frame I can compare it to and empathize a bit.

In retail I could clock out at the end of the day, and of course eventually quit. If I was treated that way 24/7 AND in the context of intimate relationships I'd have a white hot fury that would make 'man-hating' feminists look calm in comparison.

Helen absolutely

There are unreasonable and opinionated men and women.

I really hate the word the OP has chosen in her title. Demolish another person's arguments if you can - silly, generic name calling isn't doing that.

Yes, Dervel, it's pretty much exactly that. Glad you get the anger

Well my preferred method of academic debate is to blow raspberries at people, so...

I was always partial to the phrase - 'don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.'

If it's causing you stress (eg you mention being rile up/awake at night) it's probably not worth it. You can post but step away when it feels stressful, do something different, eg in RL, that you think could make a difference on an issue you care about that isn't to do with seeking to change entrenched minds.

venusinscorpio I agree male privelige is an important concept.

But of course it does not follow that an individual man is privileged in any concrete way. It is in the application of the general to the particular in the context of a person to person exchange that wires get crossed.

I think there is a difference between asserting men to be privileged in a very general, societal sense, and assuming every individual man to be priviliged.

Do you see what I mean?

I'm not saying the majority of feminists do this, but some will tell men to 'check their privelige' and certain men who feel they lack privelige react defensively.

It depends what you mean by privilege, thinking about it.

What do you mean by privelige? A psychological sense of entitlement? Or concrete, social and economic advantages? They're not the same thing.

You can be a tramp with no power at all and feel a sense of privelige I suppose.

It's a bit of a vague concept I daresay.