Post: #1

I would like to see a nice, clean simple guide with citations on how to argue against, and defeat, feminists. Not the feminists who ramble on about nonsense (although the vast majority of them do), but those who appear to possess some sort of actual argument. Some sort of "Handbook to Dismantling Feminism" or ""Guide to Arguing with Feminists and Winning."

I think this would be great for all of us to have on our computers, laptops, and phones. Not only so we could quickly dismiss feminist arguments, but pass it on to our male friends as well, so they too could see the failure of feminists to present any sort of rational argument.

Think of videos like:
Alain Soral on Feminism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb-yI
That Guy T on Feminism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSyrFey9Dbk

Both videos deal with feminist arguments and use logic to explain how they fail.

If no such thing exists, I will be working on this in the near future.

Post: #2

Enjoy your moral victories.

Post: #3

I don't waste my breath on feminists, they are so deluded in their thoughts and perspective on reality, that there is no getting through to them, no matter how much concrete logic, reason, and facts that you have. I know we live in a feminist dominated society in the west, and after taking the red pill you see the truth of how things are, but you're probably better off just going about your life like these feminist twats don't exist, and completely ignoring them if and when you are forced to deal with them.

Post: #4

Why would you want to spend your time arguing with ugly short-haired feminists when you could be spending that time banging long-haired, non-feminist cuties?

Post: #5

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because feminists and other SJWs do not live in the same reality we do.

You can't successfully argue with someone when you disagree at first principles. It's like trying to dig a hole in water.

Post: #6

Arguing with them is always a waste of time. They'll just revert to "misogyny" or "intolerance" or something like that.

Post: #7

Quote:If no such thing exists, I will be working on this in the near future.

You sound like a modern Juan Ponce De Leon.


"Winning" an argument means you've changed the feminists mind. That will never happen. I just agree and amplify.

As Vic Pride said: "There's no point in arguing with people who have made up their minds."

Or as DMX said:

If you know a bitch/
You don't listen to that bitch/
You don't argue with that bitch/
All you do is fuck that bitch/

Post: #8

(01-17-2015 10:24 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because feminists and other SJWs do not live in the same reality we do.

You can't successfully argue with someone when you disagree at first principles. It's like trying to dig a hole in water.

Hmm. I see what you mean.

I was listening to Roosh's episode 1 of the culture war and agree with him that RoK is the endgame of the manosphere; the most hardcore and red-pill ideologies are found there. I'm thinking of a guide less extreme than some of the pieces written on RoK that would be able to provide some sort of an introduction to the red pill through exploring the flaws of feminism in order to show level headed men and women that feminism is irrational and destructive.

Post: #9

Arguing with feminists is like taking candy from a baby
Their ability to argue logic is is truly abysmal, they puff up the girl power mantra in the company of feminists so pick your moment but they are totally shit one on one.
You don't need a guide, you need to pay out some string and let them fuck it up a treat, critical thinking is a mans domain, keeping the kitchen clean is a woman's

Post: #10

When you're arguing with someone who doesn't respond to logic, there's only one response:

Post: #11

What does it even mean to "win" an argument? You're going to come away thinking you had the upper hand and they'll come away thinking they had the upper hand. I think people who claim to have destroyed someone in a debate tend to sound like jackasses.

Aside from that, if someone truly believes that feminism is wrong, shouldn't they understand the arguments against it rather than having to parrot them from a handbook? "I really hate feminism! Now let me go look up why." People who think like that are just trying to fit in with whatever crowd they like better and have no actual convictions of their own. That's not the type of thing we need to encourage.

Post: #12

Looks like I have to post this picture again.

Post: #13

Don't bother debating them, there is no point, we as a society are too far gone and entrenched in this ideology. Reason was thrown out of the window decades ago. The only thing that will stop it is a massive economic crash.

Let the red pill digest completely. Do your own thing, enjoy the decline it ain't gonna last much longer.

Post: #14

To quote Irish dramatist George Bernard Shaw, 'I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.'

Post: #15

I think dissuading the OP is probably right, but there can be benefits to making a feminist look like a fool, especially if you're doing it online. If you get into an argument with one on social media and you have statistics to back you up (1 in 5 is a lie, wage gap is a myth) you can embarrass the feminist. And while you may never win her over as she cries about misogyny, you may win over neutrals that you didn't even know were reading. I've been thanked over private message several times by people who felt how I did but were never given statistics to back up their thoughts.

So yeah, it can often be fruitless, but there's ways to do it. I like to use stats + ridicule. Stats + ridicule = feminist rage. I think Matt Forney called it hi-jacking their amygdala. Once you do that, they will embarrass themselves.

Post: #16

What's that old meme..winning a debate on the internet is like winning the special olympics? I'd change that to debating with feminists is like being in the special olympics. There's no point to any of it unless they are trying to actively harm you in real life in some way (like with gamergate) then you have to go on the offensive.

Post: #17

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Post: #18

(01-18-2015 12:29 AM)iamdegaussed Wrote:  I think dissuading the OP is probably right, but there can be benefits to making a feminist look like a fool, especially if you're doing it online. If you get into an argument with one on social media and you have statistics to back you up (1 in 5 is a lie, wage gap is a myth) you can embarrass the feminist. And while you may never win her over as she cries about misogyny, you may win over neutrals that you didn't even know were reading. I've been thanked over private message several times by people who felt how I did but were never given statistics to back up their thoughts.

So yeah, it can often be fruitless, but there's ways to do it. I like to use stats + ridicule. Stats + ridicule = feminist rage. I think Matt Forney called it hi-jacking their amygdala. Once you do that, they will embarrass themselves.

I think it looks dorky. Researching statistics to use against feminists to beat them in arguments is not a productive use of your time.

Post: #19

First off, I do want to acknowledge OP's admirable curiosity about rhetoric and debate in an age in which said impulses are increasingly rare.

Secondly, I think we are best off reading actual source material and feminist "studies." Trust me when I tell you the strong majority of feminists have never read any key material written by Brownmiller, Faludi, Steinem, bell hooks, Dworkin, etc. You can best them in debate not by actually arguing with them, but making them look like morons for their ignorance of their own beliefs.

You can also deal with feminists by actually reading the studies they do and criticize the methodology, data collection methods, etc. This is a weaker point, but it still is a salient.

Finally, if you haven't noticed yet, this isn't so much about besting feminists in a debate, but educating yourself on their theories. Debating feminists is mostly a suckers bet, but you can understand their theories in a way that can inform your view of the world. And -- by that -- I mean their theories are a disgusting trainwreck of fetid bullshit.

All this being said, I wouldn't waste too much of your time on feminist thought. It can be very tough to not take to their mindless rage and let it affect you. There is a reason that feminists are so unhappy: they spend all their time reading material that upholds their decision to be unhappy.

Post: #20

(01-18-2015 01:00 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  Trust me when I tell you the strong majority of feminists have never read any key material written by Brownmiller, Faludi, Steinem, bell hooks, Dworkin, etc. You can best them in debate not by actually arguing with them, but making them look like morons for their ignorance of their own beliefs.

Every version of modern feminism is just a replication, extreme edit, or somewhat abbreviated version of the original source. You remember "slam books" in the 80's? Maybe not, i'm old but it was like reddit or tumblr lite back in the day where girls would pass around a book and add bullshit that would solidfy their social standing or order. It was full of gossip, innuendo, and new social norms for the ones in the know.

That's what modern internet feminism is it's women adding paraphrases and comments in something that is to be treated like the indisputed truth. It gets more divergent and nonsensical the broader the scope of contributors. It was already a heaping pile of shit before but with mainstream legitimacy it becomes a virus.

Society is supposed to accept and appreciate this version of reality. If not, well you're a misogynistic piece of shit of course!

Post: #21

In my eyes those who haven't understood that only a very small minority of people in this world make their decisions, opinions, actions and lifestyles based on logical arguments are still blue pill simpletons.

Most of humanity consists of emotion driven zombie-animals. That's the actual red pill. Want even more red pill - in some ways you can't conceive of - all your logic arguments probably come from your emotional desires and you are actually an irrational an zombie slave to something too at some level. That's the crimson pill.

Post: #22

To me Stefan Molyneux represents the most honest and red pill version of society. It's rational, consistent and goes to the source of the problem with feminism, which is the governments of western society, if this guy doesn't debate them and see's no point, why would we bother. These are some of the quotes of the video, it just makes sense why feminism exists in the first place when you look at the source of it's power.


-Ethics have nothing to do with gender relations these days


-Its not often that you bite that hand that feeds you. Now that women can vote to take the property of men largely, through the government, through welfare, child benefits, government schools, through public housing. Children have turned through the state from liabilities to assets.


-Now women can just have hobby vagina's, they can just go have fun with their vagina's and they can turn the most elemental force of life itself into self indulgent recreation because they can run to daddy government to pay for all of their idiocies


-Modern feminism has no reference in reality, its really the crimes of the state, its not a belief system that needs to be debated, it is simply a weird tumor that has come out of the artificial situation, that has arisen in the last 40 years. Where governments run in to save a women with stolen, borrowed or printed money from their stupid mistakes and therefore whatever you subsidies you get more of, subsidies stupidity and irresponsibility you get more stupidity and irresponsibility and whatever you tax you diminish, like taxing responsibility


-Modern feminism to me is the most retrograde thing that you can conceivably imagine, Victorian women had more independence and self respect than this because they are running to men, to get things for free, they are running to the state which they complain is patriarchal and they're running to police men who are usually men, who armed with guns built and made and invented by men. These women are making irresponsible choices and running to men, to get those men to give them things so they don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions to call that feminism is the sickest joke you can conceive of.


-Any women who takes money from the government, using cops who extracted it from by force is not a feminist, is an exceedingly bad bride of the state


-Lots of feminist in the soviet union, lots of feminists in eastern Europe and then when the government collapsed they all latched on to men.

Post: #23

Post: #24

Content means little when debating feminists, if you intend to win over women to your cause.

Amused mastery is the way to go and be unapologetic patriarchal (not bitter), but laugh it off. When women see a man unphased by feminist rethoric they see a) a man who is strong and makes the feminist get emotional and b) a lack of power in feminist beliefs. The average woman is only feminist because they believe it benefits them. If men stop responding to feminist shaming and laugh it off like the deluded ideas they are, then they will find other, hopefully more pleasent, ways to influence men to get what they want.

Post: #25

Yes, it's in a movie, Swept Away, oddly enough directed by an Italian woman, Lina Wertmuller: