WINNING

How do you know when you’ve won a discussion or debate with the majority of modern women? For all men out there I’m here to reveal the big secret to it – they storm off and refuse to talk about it anymore because you’re apparently being argumentative/difficult/insert your own derogatory
character trait here.

Which in reality means you have outreasoned them with your point of view but, as they have been conditioned to think modern women are never wrong about anything, they won’t admit it and stomp off as a face saving exercise.

However, despair not – once you know the above then you can recognise what is really happening and not let it get to you or fall into the ‘apology’ trap. Instead, you can relax safe in the knowledge that you have sidestepped their attempt at emotional manipulation and proved your point through well presented fact.

As a further aside, what is the ‘apology’ trap I refer to above? It is a device of emotional manipulation that a lot of women use when they can’t get their own way on things.

It works like this – basically, they cry/storm off/display negative emotional behaviour that makes you feel bad even if you are in the right on whatever issue is at hand. If you let it, this in turn (as a decent human being) forces you to find some way (usually an apology or backing down even if you are right) to make them feel better.

This then ensures they get their own way come hell or high water. As a male it is imperative you recognise this type of behaviour and not respond to it – like a toddler throwing a tantrum she will soon get bored and realise this is not the way to try to get what she wants.

The use of emotion by women to attempt to control and manipulate a situation to their advantage is an extremely interesting area to ponder on. In some ways I think they are actually unable to separate the emotion from whatever situation is at hand which can lead to this and which makes them so unreasonable at times in discussions.

If it is a particularly emotive subject they are unable to focus on the facts and instead respond on the basis of how they feel. That is why, in my personal experience, many women do not make good managers or leaders as a result of this character trait that seems inherent to the female gender.

Posted by Anthony Humphreys

Comments

[stuart]

Funny, I have seen the exact same thing used by some men here?

[CitizenJ]

Sorry, I really feel this piece is misguided.
One of the reasons why I like TROM so much is that it has always steered clear of making sexist generalisations (THAT is usually left to the feminists whose activities are charted on these pages).

We need to keep intellectual and ethical coherence. Which means we must carry on arguing for justice and fairness and NOT tarring a whole category of people with the same brush.

More emphasis on the fine work of Skimmington and Jon Kimble please and less of this kind of nonsense.

[John Kimble]

I don't really agree with much of this. We're not debating women, we're debating gender feminists and all their various allies.

I'm not necessarily against controversial articles, but no sources are provided for any of the points made so it isn't really possible to defend much of what is said even if we wanted to.

Everything in the article also applies to men, white knight defenders of misandry in particular are often just as irrational and emotional as any of their female counterparts.

I really think articles like this damage the site far more than any random nonsense in the comments section.

[Anthony Humphreys]

I feel I must respond to the previous two comments to clarify the article. Firstly, I don't make any sweeping generalisations about women in the article - if you read what is there rather than what you want to see I refer to a lot/the majority/many women displaying this behaviour. If you are going to comment please read articles more carefully first.

Secondly, just because examples can't be refernced to an academic source doesn't mean they don't exist / happen. I live in the real world (not some academic neverland) which is where the behaviour addressed in the article happens frequently and which I have experienced personally on many occassions.

If we are to gain equality we must level the playing field again and that is what this article strives for. While we allow some women to manipulate us emotionally for their own benefit we will never be strong enough to gain what we desire as men.

[John Kimble]

Anthony, that last line of the article is quite a sweeping generalisation don't you think? Exactly the sort of statement you'd see about males by some man-hating Guardian writer.

You don't need to provide sources, but a link to some sort of research or even a real life example in the news would have made for a stronger article.

There's no shame in tweaking an article when people point out a mistake. I've certainly done it before.

[stuart]

Anthony. You will find talking with some of the "men" here like talking to feminists.

You are entering, the Mangina zone.

[Paul Parmenter]

Interesting article and interesting comments. I too think the article is somewhat out of place on this site, which aims at keeping debate at a higher intellectual level than we see elsewhere - which makes it such a breath of fresh air - and prefers to deal with specifics.

But again, although the article strays onto the dangerous ground of generalisation, I also understand Anthony's point. What he describes chimes very true with me; it is a phenomenon which we see time and again with women in all walks of life. It is remarkable how they can win arguments and make men back down from what they believe or even know to be right, simply by playing the chivalry card - "you have hurt me by your words, so now you have to make reparation to me. And don't do it again."

It is destructive and prevents proper debate. It is one of the reasons why misandry in our society is so stubborn and difficult to challenge or eradicate. So I think it is helpful to be aware of it. We should not shy away from tackling difficult subjects just because they may offend some people. At bottom, the most important question we should be asking of Anthony's article is not "why am I reading this here?" but "is it true?"

[Groan]

Good points Paul. On a policy level one can see the development of Laws and policies built around the emotional offence/affect of an action rather than the action itself. So Stalking is a very recent example. The actions have always been illegal and there have been high profile cases of men or women prosecuting stalkers. The "new" element is the affect of the various actions comprising stalking on the victim. Now in the relatively few pieces of research and statistical analysis done men and women are subjected to the behaviours and actions. However men are less likely to express fear and more likely to take steps to avoid the stalking. Consequently they are much less likely to be considered victims of stalking even though the same actions had been taken against them.
Its rather like deciding its unnecessary to prosecute a burgular if the victims of the burgulary are phlegmatic in their response and get themselves better security for the future.

[Anthony Humphreys]

thanks for the additional comments on the article as they explain the point I was trying to make better than I did I think and so hopefully can show others where I was coming from with it.

i think its dangerous to handicap what we're trying to achieve by making some methods or issues off limits to debate. while it is noble to try to claim the moral high ground and keep things on a purely intellectual basis this probably won't work on its own to change things. If we did that you can be sure women who are against us (not all women obviously) would be busy using every trick they can while we're being nice & playing fair