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.

Dervel generally I'd have said it's ok and we definitely seemed to have an acceptable proportion of women in senior roles. Finance, HR and Operations all have female heads. We do seem to have identified a specific issue here though, which I will be pursuing with my own (female) boss.

Anyway, didnt mean to make it about me. I think Vesuvia said it well.

This debate has moved on!.. I think that there's as much male dispriviledge as privilege. ..the being tied to being physically strong, the 'ability' or neglect that allows/encourages men to not share emotions, not be encourage or helped to recognise feelings, to 'handle' things alone, to be oressured to deal with health risks, and i even think the 'real men dont wash their hands' is a kind of brutalisation of men. Personally i find it interesting that the idea of a 'real' man seems to be very working class and brutal, but the idea of a 'real' woman is an emotionally imtelligent capable and sort of decorative/creative home manager... but hiw did this hapoen when the 'salt of the earth' narrative of 'realness' should include women working in factor u es or other working class jobs.

Is this an English thing only?

scaryclown The problem with MRA types is that they see male "disprivilege" as the fault of feminism rather than something that would be improved by a healthy dose of it.

Even as far back as the ERA feminists have argued that freeing up gender stereotypes would release men from the stress of being the main breadwinner. Yet MRA/ reactionary types are determined to paint feminism as anti-man.

OP, that is the crux of the matter. As a feminist online you are on a losing wicket as so many negative assumptions will be made about you and these people are so determined to believe those things that no amount of reasoning will change their minds. But I like the idea that you are talking to the lurkers.

One thing you might try doing is backing up the opinions of feminists/commenters who you agree with. It will bolster their confidence, you won't be in the firing line so much and there's strength in numbers.

Dervel your post about the unfairness of holding feminism to a saintly criteria is so true. I know one isn't supposed to get gushy about men who say what feminists have been saying all along but thanks for getting it.

Feministsareuseless has gotten his ED-Ucation from Dre..

I think the issue here us asshole men. good men who have narrow views will argue and have their opinion changed a bit, or soften tgeir position to accommodate. Asshole men are assholes.

mind you; i am someone who likes the adrenaline of an argument and with secure people taking a different..even narrow perspective can be fun and atimulating for all. Its when insecure people either make it WAY too serious or turn it into a personal attack, or a simple power game that arguing gets frustrating.

i think the main mistake many gender arguments make is assuming that thinks like patriarchy is solely negative for women, is deliberately constructed , and objectively 'wrong' are advanced scientific facts rather than a perspective that needs persuasion for people to examine, and can be used as a different platforn to examine the whole. Hearing someone elses aggressive views can be very good at developing your own. if you treat arguments as helpful engagements rather than bullying or abusive engagements, it helos you to stick to the objective.

Some people cant do any of this, nor argue a perspevtive they dont hold, and this gives the 'i am right 100%' idiocy.

If MRAs argue feminism causes disprivilege..arent they wrong with their dates? I can see that the tribal ideas of protecting the womenfolk does give rise to male expendibility maybe?

mind you i cant help feeling that in many ways equality for women has become a way for companies to get twice as much labour from the same household without more freedom or benefit to either sex overall..as prices have gone up to absorb extra income..and 'space and time' in the household seems to have gone down.. bit i'm just bitter about having to ratger than wanting to work..

I think this is germane...

Regarding the arguing/debating..I have stepped away a bit from logic. It seems a lot of times to be misused. For instance, someone will call someone else out on a logical fault...and it will often be a minor fallacy, which while technically sound, doesn't really establish anything.

Too, I've noticed that like with PMQ's, all one has to do is just sidestep the question. No one, outside of a court of law, can make someone answer specifically.

I simply try and make my line of reasoning "follow", for instance I wouldn't use, "All apples are fruit, therefore dogs are mammals."

But it is of interest. I think beneath it all we see a hierarchical ranking of maths over social science. And in a way empiricism can be said to be stronger....who can argue against 2+2=4?

I think there is a deep misunderstanding though about the nature of logic....it is simply a tool....there is no truth to it or any moral good. But I feel that often people like MRAs and Red Pillers think that using what they feel is logic makes their beliefs of higher value. But "truth" is "true" no matter how you get there - dogs are in fact mammals.

This is veering very close to babbling, but it helps explain, perhaps, why debating with some people is so hard.

Really good comment Make. Empirical concepts are totally abused in online debate. They have their place, but are often applied in a very spurious way.

The fact of the matter is that whatever your ideological agenda, you will be able to misuse logical concepts to justify it. This usually happens in the former of semantic quibbling as you say. Furthermore, courtesy of the internet, you will be able to find statistical data to support any argument. There are thousands of shoddy studies out there, and good ones with data that can be taken out of context and re-framed to suit ones preconceptions.

Logic and reason are different things. Logic is clinically cerebral, whereas reason is also emotional and intuitive. When it comes to the social sciences logic alone is inadequate.