[Here is ] a textbook example of one of the most classic feminist arguing tactics. You’ve probably seen it a million times. It goes like this:Leonidas offers one way of responding to such tactics and it's not an unreasonable one. However, it is a little too gentle to be an effective object lesson as it allows a path of retreat. This is why it does not instill the necessary amount of intellectual shock and awe of the sort that women find attractive and men respect. Note that he says he sees it a lot. That's because he hasn't addressed it in a conclusive manner.
Step 1: Pick a huge fight by being extremely argumentative.
Step 2: As soon as it looks like you’re losing, deploy the “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” defense.
I’ve seen this one a lot. My sister is an absolute master at it. My sister-in-law is less adept at it but she loves to use it.
Step 1 usually begins with the woman in question stating a principle that of course any right and decent minded person would agree with – never mind that it might be downright offensive to somebody present. In fact, it’s usually part of the point that it’s offensive to somebody. Then when you begin to argue the point they can turn and claim that you were the one who started arguing. Not them, oh no. You had to go and turn it into a fight, and they really don’t want to fight. Cue batted eyelashes, innocent look, and maybe some tears.
It’s bullshit, of course. They start out with an insulting premise. They throw the gauntlet in your face and then act shocked when you dare to pick it up. Sometimes they genuinely are shocked. In many cases nobody else has ever dared to do so before. This is especially common for women who are smart but not as smart as they think they are. It’s also very common for women who surround themselves with like minded thinkers and rarely find themselves in the company of halfway intelligent people with dissenting views.
The second step is almost never actually phrased as “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl.” A good feminist can’t phrase it that way. It implies that women are weak and really can’t compete with the big boys (which, for the women who employ this tactic, is generally actually true; they’re employing it because they’ve already lost the argument and they know it). It’s usually some variant of, “can’t we all just get along?” or, “why do we have to argue about this?” Sometimes you’ll also see it as, “why do you always have to win every argument?”
There is, however, a way out of the dilemma when it occurs. Call them on it.
First, unless she is holding a loaded firearm, there is absolutely no reason to be afraid of contradicting a woman - or, for that matter a man - spouting nonsense. Especially not when that nonsense is specifically intended to be provocative. But calm and reasoned argument is much less effective, and much less ALPHA, than open contempt and ridicule. While there are times that social etiquette will demand a politely contemptuous reply, there is no reason to hide one's disdain for the nonsensical blather being produced.
Casual: "So, are you actually retarded enough to believe what you are babbling or is this some sort of test to see who will be the first to point out how absurd it is?"
Polite: "You know, what you said reminds me of something PJ O'Rourke once said about Jim Morrison. People like to talk about how he was a poet, but they usually leave out the fact that he was an awful one."
Remember, only high value men hit back. It's the low value men who don't dare. After a woman published an article in our college newspaper accusing my roommates and me of being "sexist pornographers", I wrote an article for the same paper that so viciously shredded both the woman and her argument that I was subsequently informed of how she burst into tears and cried after reading it. An interesting consequence was that men I didn't know started offering me high-fives as I walked around campus, while women also I didn't know started pointing at me and approaching me to ask about the incident.
Consider George Clooney. He kicked both Elisabetta Canalis and Sarah Larson to the curb for little more than talking nonsense about him in public, so what are the chances that he is inclined to sit meekly nodding along in faux agreement whenever a woman starts babbling incoherently about Hollywood or the Sudan in his presence? One of the primary male displays of high value is a refusal to tolerate nonsensical female speech. Now, it's not a disaster if you go to the trouble of factual refutation; I myself am unfortunately occasionally inclined to reel off mind-numbing, statistics-laden mini-lectures in response to fallacious arguments.
But the reality is that since the insulting proposition on offer is not fact-based and is seldom supported by any reason, there is no requirement to utilize objective facts and logic to tear it down. Contempt and ridicule are faster, more effective, and display higher value. Unsurprisingly, women rapidly learn not to play the "don't hit me, I'm a girl" game around men who demonstrate they won't hesitate to smash any such player, of either sex, in the teeth.
Sure, there will be women who will hate you as a result, but don't forget, in the female mind, hate is just another way to say "I'd let him fuck me." In the head is all but in the bed.