I rarely debate the feminist minded online anymore unless and I am completely bored or just want to stir things up for those on the fence, but the other day I was having a not-so reasonable discussion about domestic violence with a few members of the pro-feminist crowd about DV. Here it goes.
They come from the "men bad, woman innocent victim" mindset, and rather than continue to present stats over and over---which they deny often anyway---I made the controversial suggestion that an unhealthy amount of Western women are attractive to abusive men because of several reasons outside of being "trapped." Including that "love" to them is so skewered and corrupt, a gentle and kind man would never have a chance . . . their idea of a loving relationship is an ongoing war.
Over the course of the conversation, one of them claimed to be a social worker for damaged women and called out that I (apparently) agreed with women being abused in a DV context, perhaps, as a good thing---simply because I didn't comply with the idea women would NEVER be consciously attracted to abusive partners if they had seen the red flags. Not to mention any reason I gave why they would continue the cycle were really legit whatsoever, and how dare I suggest that certain women would gravitate towards that prototype of man over and over. Or be abusive themselves in the fray.
Now, I'm not a psychologist, but it's pretty clear that there are factors as to why abused---and abusive---women continue the dynamic of engaging men that are bad for them. Perhaps because I don't care to kow tow to the politically correct mentality of why women stay with brutal men is one element as to why I was called out as condoning DV. I cannot stress enough the hubris of someone---such as our alleged social worker---that would do that. And employing a logical fallacy and demonizing me all at once with personal attacks. Lovely.
Here's an example of the name calling and game playing I'm talking about, and why I rarely bother arguing with hopheads about feminist subjects---with them, it's all about winning and looking good and righteous, while making the other debater look as bad as possible. Hell, even prefacing an argument with the notion that domestic violence is negative doesn't always help, and I will tell you why.
Let's say that Sally dubs herself as anti-racist and takes a moral position, all the while advancing an assertion that---in her mind---is not subject for scrutiny. And any person that disagrees with her, even with evidence, is still wrong, and therefore a racist by default.
See what I mean?
That's one of the reasons why straight up argumentation is often pointless with these people. They bully. They are passive-aggressive. They dominate all sides of the argument. They are disingenuous with their approach, and like any self-righteous feminist, mangina, or moral hack they have to somehow not only paint their opposition as fools, jerks, or demonize them, and just as significantly, they have to create their own boogeymen, often as a why to justify their ersatz ethical ground and assuage their own insecurities and fears.
I give props to those who have the scrote for cluebatting in such an environment, but I largely leave it to those want to tread darker waters. My patience has almost worn out.