- Wherever possible close down debate by accusing anyone with a contrary view of being a misogynist. There are undoubtedly misogynists out there – and a few misandrists. Though the latter, unlike the former, seem to have a foothold in mainstream media. Misogyny has a broad definition and can mean anyone who disagrees with a feminist point of view – so use the term without thought or care.
- Accuse your opponent of being ‘fragile’ After all, he is a member of the tyrannical patriarchy and not used to being challenged. This is a very popular tactic and when your opponent argues back that only proves you are right. This is nonsense of course, but patronising and intensely irritating and therefore emotionally rewarding for you.
- Historical dredging. Search the past for examples to support your argument that you are oppressed and a victim of the patriarchy. There is no statute of limitations so you could go back to the onset of sexual reproduction 1.5 billion years ago. It doesn’t matter that your chosen example has not affected either yourself or your opponent. For example, a woman in her twenties arguing with a man of a similar age could leverage women acquiring the vote in 1918 (ignoring the fact that 5.6 million men also acquired the vote for the first time that year) even though both parties and their parents have been able to vote for the entirety of their lives.
- Geographic dredging. If you live in a pretty equal society it is easier to look for examples of oppression in other countries then perform a kind of bait and switch. If women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia that is also your victimhood even if you live in North London where there are no restrictions on your driving. For the percentage of women whose first sexual experience is rape cite the data for Bangladesh even though you do not yourself live there.
- ‘Must have been written by a man’. If your opponent cites any evidence you disagree with but can not immediately refute, close down the argument with ‘well it must have been written by a man’ – even if you have no idea who the authors actually were.
- Straw man arguments. Caricature your opponent’s arguments and argue against that caricature instead of their actual argument. If you are lucky your opponent will fall into that trap and argue for your distorted reframing of the original argument. For a master class in straw man arguments and how to counter them see the Cathy Newman/Jordan Peterson interview.
- Ad hominem attacks. Instead of attacking the argument attack the man. Returning to the Jordan Peterson debate. The Guardian responded to the debacle with ad-hominem attacks on Jordan Peterson but made no real attempt to engage with the substance of his arguments.
- Redefine the category. When faced with a counterexample of say a woman behaving badly or in a way that is said to be typical of men, argue that she is not a ‘real woman.’ For example, when it was claimed that more female leaders would make the world less warlike and compassionate the counterexample of Margaret Thatcher was posited but it was stated that she was not ‘real woman.’ However, exactly what category she did belong to (marine iguanas?) wasn’t made clear.
- The alt-right accusation. One of the problems of identity group politics is that it has driven many working-class men towards the right. Or rather those on the right of politics have realised there is a class of disaffected men (mostly) who have not benefited from the so-called patriarchy, that nobody is speaking up for. However, that does not mean that anyone who challenges a feminist viewpoint is automatically alt-right. I consider myself to be left-leaning.
- The pro-rape accusation. To argue against any tenet of feminism is to be a rape apologist. This makes no sense of course but say it loudly enough and often enough and your opponent may give up. For an example of this behaviour watch this YouTube video of Warren Farrell attempting to speak at the University of Toronto. Move straight onto 4.23 if you don’t want to watch the full bigotted horror. A mild-mannered young man is accused of being a rape apologist merely for wanting to attend a lecture.
toxic feminism 