Friday, July 15, 2011

Yes, she is a girl. So hit her.

Relax, it's a metaphor. Leonidas explains a common female argumentative tactic:
[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:

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.
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.

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.


AJ said...

Doesn't this contradict the post about not being other people's reality cop? Or is this post only about reacting to an obviously argumentative statement, and the reality cop one about people who just make casual incorrect remarks with no malicious intent and you just letting them continue on their merry (but incorrect) way?

VD said...

The latter. Not playing Reality Cop means not being disagreeable and seeking out opportunities to correct the mistakes and misapprehensions of others, particularly your significant other. In other words, not behaving in a provocative manner.

Hitting back refers to responding directly and conclusively to someone else's provocative behavior.

For example, if a woman says "I think Megan and her new boyfriend are really in love" when the new boyfriend is obviously a player, Reality Cop applies. Leave it alone. If Megan subsequently says "You are an evil, heartless, and cruel beast because my boyfriend cheated on me", set her straight.

Anonymous said...

I prefer another approach that tries to disarm the silliness in a slightly kinder way. E.g.,

"Nobody in their right mind believes ____."

Response: "I assume you're just trying to start a conversation because we all know you're too intelligent to believe that."


indyguy77@work said...

Am I the only one thinking Clooney should have hotter chicks?

Maybe he knows the 9s & 10s are too much trouble/work?

Anonymous said...

Or maybe Clooney is really gay?

swiftfoxmark2 said...

One time a girl told me that she was planning on donating some of her hair to Locks of Love. I promptly told her that most cancer patients do not wear the wigs and that it was a waste. Her jaw nearly dropped to the ground as her self-righteousness dissipated above her.

My wife and mother told me not do things like that. But I've never been a good listener.

Never hit girls or women. But always hit back.

JCclimber said...

I have lots of opportunities to do this kind of thing, living in a small community not too far from San Francisco.

It is assumed by most people at my job that everyone working there must be thoroughly bought into the liberal mindset.

It is especially fun to do it at a hypersensitive Politically Correct company. You just have to be a bit more subtle and witty about it. The moments of stunned silence while the hamster is briefly knocked of its wheel is highly amusing.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

Verbal smack downs are like negging. It keeps a girl grounded when done correctly and tactfully. Be funny, be blunt and make sure others hear it.

Dan in Philly said...

All I can say is once I started hitting back, I got hit a lot less. In fact, I have gotten pre-emptive apologies for bad bahavior ever since I showed that I wasn't playing along anymore.

Anonymous said...

"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"

What did you write? Do you still have this article?

Yohami said...

no, neither casual nor polite examples are alpha, nor direct nor confrontational. Its like you are attempting to be confrontational AND smart about it. Direct is better than smart:

- You have no clue of what you are talking about do you?

- Keep your mouth shut.

- It only shows you are a fucking [ racist ].

- No, you are wrong.

- You are making no sense.

Tiger4Christ said...

Direct is good, but wit is a DHV. If it rolls off the tongue without effort, fine. If you have to think about it, better to go direct. Don't pretend to be smarter than you are.

VD said...

no, neither casual nor polite examples are alpha, nor direct nor confrontational. Its like you are attempting to be confrontational AND smart about it.

I don't think too many VP readers would be surprised by that. One minor problem with being highly intelligent is that no matter what you say, there is very little chance that it is not going to be interpreted as "smart". I find have found that simply rolling with it works best for me, but I suppose mileage may vary.

The high-low response is a particular favorite of mine, which is to say, combining the ludicrously esoteric with the offensively vulgar. It usually genereates a half-horrified laugh from the innocent bystanders.

"Aristotle wrote in his Rhetoric about those who cannot be reached by dialectic, but require rhetoric to be persuaded. Translated into your monkey barks, that means that you're too fucking stupid to be reasoned with."

indyguy77@work said...

So it's like a slap to the face, followed by a kick in the balls.

Interesting approach.

It's amusing to see the effect on the bystanders. Most cower and appear to be thinking "I'm glad I'm not HIM right now..." But when you get the guys alone to talk, they agree with you. They just don't have to balls to do so in public.

But when you're shutting down a lowmouth idiot woman that really needs a metaphorical beatdown, they should be cheering. Preferably while piling on if they're able.

Wrong is wrong. Adding inept and female doesn't change that at all.

They wouldn't hesitate if it was a dude making stupid statements, so really THEY'RE being condescendingly sexist by not confronting them.

Or cowards for not wanting to upset their sexist girlfriend standers-by.

Stingray said...

Having been on the receiving end of this more than once, it can be highly effective. Also, this may be the best time for her to learn. Embarrassment can be a highly motivating thing, as in, I never want to say something that stupid again. Please teach me.

Victory Unlimited Show said...

The truth is that a man can NEVER go wrong when his actions come from a place of defending his self-respect.

It's always a sad day whenever men choose to "keep the peace" when a positive show of masculinity is really what they needs to WIN the day.

SarahsDaughter said...

Yep Stingray, I completely agree. Guys, if you want your wives/girlfriends to pursue intelligence, wisdom, and discernment, heed this advice.

Yohami said...

Vox, I see these smart arguments would work if the parties are calmed and the debate is working, but, not when the girl has already turned this into a victimization emotional play where you´re the bad guy for making her feel uncomfortable when she was just trying to assert what regularly gives her security.

In other words your sin is to make feel bad, it doesnt matter if she deserves for supporting hitler and you calling her on it. When women turn it emotional, the only thing that has worked for ME, after many, many year dealing with this shit and trying all angles possible, is to become even more blunt and dont let them get away with anything.

So direct and short and blunt and direct, rather than smart and bullshit.

But I can see the smart confrontation working if the other speaker is also smart, and not emotionally deviated yet, and probably not a woman.

VD said...

So direct and short and blunt and direct, rather than smart and bullshit.

I think you've misunderstood what I'm describing. I'm not talking about BS'ing anybody, I'm talking about intellectually humiliating someone who has offered up a foolish challenge.

It's like dunking the basketball in someone's face instead of laying it up. The point isn't just to end the argument, it is to end even the likelihood of future arguments.

Notice that this also directly addresses the emotional aspect you mention, since women fear public humiliation and subsequent loss of face more than just about anything.

Yohami said...

yeah I didnt mean you are trying to "bullshit" them, that was a mis-use of the word on my part

"It's like dunking the basketball in someone's face instead of laying it up. The point isn't just to end the argument, it is to end even the likelihood of future arguments."

As a way to prevent the conflict, go all neg + tease + dominace + in your face + chill. And intellectually smart, thats good too, when the opponent can get what you are saying.

But I havent seen it work in conflict, after the girl crosses the "dont hit me, im a girl you´re an abuser" line and with the subsequent 60 IQ drop they experience.

What have worked WORST for me: to calmly and patiently explain them they did something wrong, or worse, PROVE them they did something wrong: like meticulously detonate all of their land mines.

When the woman crosses the "Im the victim" line she pays attention to emotional energy only. Smarts turn off. If you see it from their point of view, they are actually victims: they are getting discomfort and, unlike men, they are wired to scream "help", and they expect men to attend to their help scream, not to keep prologuing the torture.

So once she screams help its too late to get into whos fault is what. Not that she can take it, even if its all her fault.

So FOR ME what has worked best, again, once she crosses the idiotic line is to give her aloof + blunt + straight and get her out of sight. So keep my stand and call her on her shit completely and END the interaction. If she tries to provoke and increase the war, put her down, increase the dominance, but not giving her more fuel nor stuff to talk about - no fuel for her brain, no more arguments for her to twist.

She will keep the victim mentality entirely until she calms down. Its like a timed alarm. No point on feeding it.

King A said...

"In my experience it is difficult for a man ... not to find [a woman] cute, rather than intimidating, when she gets angry." -- Harvey Mansfield

Who argues with women?

I wish the anecdotalist would just recount exactly what happened. The situation gets murky in highly interpretable generalities like "an insulting premise."

"Call them on it." Direct approaches and true statements have little relevance to the female mind. "Calling" someone on something presumes that person has the capacity to recognize the nature of their bluff. (Obama?) Women don't have this attribute. They lurch from emotion to emotion with little disinterested understanding of the conversational dynamic. "Calling" is way too meta to be effective. She just says stuff, there is no accountability. Hence the insanity of engaging her "argument" at any level.


You tease her through the nonsense and, when necessary, draw sharp borders of propriety around her verbal stream of consciousness through the tone of your responses. If she dares you to enforce those boundaries through violence, something deeper is going on that has nothing to do with any specific verbal contradiction.

Heated discussions with women are arousing, not frustrating.

Yohami said...

about why reasoning with heated women doesnt work

Jack said...

Very cool post.

It's all about personal boundaries. Learn when to accept things and let things fly, and went to step up and don't be a bitch.

Jenny said...

Exactly Jack. Seriously, King A? That's laughable.

Crowhill, good one! In the film "The Queen", Tony Blair had to smack down his wife's BS about dissolving the monarchy and basically said, "Please spare me the off-with-their-heads rubbish, because it insults your intelligence."

"Never hit girls or women. But always hit back."

Pretty darn accurate. I've tried to keep things light online, but when the occasion arises, I don't let bs lie.

True Indy, even guys who have been jerky to me were respectful by not PATRONIZING me.

Post a Comment