Several months ago I posted What to expect when you debate a feminist. Three of my key points were:
- Don’t expect an actual rational argument beyond their well rehearsed opening salvo and a few well worn slogans.
- They will try to shame you.
- Once they realize they can’t win the argument, they will try to scuttle the debate.
You may be wondering if there is a risk in outlining their playbook so openly. What if the feminists realize we are on to them and start doing things differently? What if they start using rational arguments instead of the same cheap tactics which they have used for 50 years? What then? But then you would be forgetting one of my other key points:
Their tactics never change.
As evidence, I present to you Exhibit A: Ferdinand’s DV Debate: David Futrelle fulminates; loses temper and debate
I admit I didn’t read the whole debate between Paul Elam and the male feminist who’s cups runneth over. He went there to trade study for study on the question of whether women really do commit domestic violence against men at similar levels as men do to women. His argument was that since he could point to more studies showing the orthodox feminist view, his perspective must be right. I stopped reading after a commenter to the debate jumped in the ring and knocked the feminist out with a link to the Jezebel post where feminists brag about all of the domestic violence they have committed against their boyfriends: Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have
Stay classy feminists.
The feminist looked like he might come to just in time to avoid the count. He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends. Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves. And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway. Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.
Then a commenter on his own blog pointed out that there are multiple pages of comments on the post, and referenced examples of the women breaking into ex boyfriends homes and stabbing them, etc. Even the feminist was stunned. I pretty much stopped following the action at that point.
So I wasn’t surprised to learn that shortly thereafter he stopped backing up the feminist study dump truck and decided to find an excuse to end the debate and remove the record of it instead.
Right about now you may be thinking wait, the feminist forgot to say Paul has a small penis! Isn’t that a rule?
Yes, but the feminist debating Paul is actually a man with gender inappropriate cleavage issues; this would put him in a tough spot when it came to making the small penis argument.
Fortunately for him, one of the female feminist commenters on his site was willing to step in and handle this task herself. To the feminist blogger’s credit, he did point out that telling someone they have a small penis isn’t exactly an argument. At this point the female commenter clarified that she of course didn’t mean that feminist men had small penises. As Deansdale shares in his post This is what a feminist brain looks like:
Tec, talking about MRAs: “And fyi, I don’t get wet from little babies and their tiny baby penises.“
Manboobz: “Tec, thanks. (Except maybe for the baby penises bit; no need to sink to their level.)“
Tec: “And so David, so the tiny penis comment wasn’t meant for you, just the big babies who weren’t breastfed long enough and now whine about evil womynz.“