This becomes abundantly clear whenever a woman tries to argue with a man about porn. You can have all the sources about the harms of porn, but men will find a way to deny all of it, because they don't want to stop watching porn. They'll just call you crazy, controlling, and insecure. Their intellectual honesty ends where their sexual pleasure starts.

This is an aspect of separatism. Men seek domination and violation (of boundaries) in every interaction they have with women. They are ready for, seek out, and ultimately get pleasure from arguing with women, which they rarely do in good faith. The goal is always to dominate by shows of strength and supposed intellectual prowess, by gish gallop arguments, by ad hominems focused on the women's female socialization characteristics they insist women should embrace, and by varying levels of verbal abuse.

The thing men can't stand is being ignored. That is why incels are so angry. When men show up all the women should block, mute, or ignore them.

Agree. It is remarkable how little men are willing to learn/interested in learning, particularly from women - whenever I interact with someone I'm always thinking 'what can I learn from this person? What do they know, or what can they explain, that will change my mind about something?' But men, in general, really don't engage with other people with the attitude that they might learn or grow or change.

And men have zero incentive to become more feminist, or consider changing the misogynistic/patriarchal rules we live under - why should they, when they get completely unearned and unjustified benefit from them? It would, honestly, be stupid of them to want this to change.

I agree that arguing with men in an online forum comment section will not change that particular man's mind. I do however put up reasonable arguments waiting for a man to come along and disagree so that other posters can see what an unreasonable ass he is. Particularly so other women can see what your average man thinks.

My eyes were opened to the true nature of men by seeing how they interact with women when they are anonymous. How willing they are to advertise their hatred of women and don't even try to hide it.

As long as you have the power to do so, build systems for women. Enable women. Employ women. Teach, train, and network with women. And treat backstabbing women with the same caution as men.

It took me a few years into adulthood to realize how useless it is to argue with most men. They will not be persuaded. They respect men's testimony more and they almost always maintain male solidarity.

Furthermore, I simply paid attention to the words men were saying. Ones in my life have mentioned how much they enjoy seeing ppl get upset. They like seeing women get worked up. I have stopped giving them the pleasure.

Also, they like talking to pretty, young ladies. So the "debate" is just a turn on in some ways.

I choose not to waste time with men at all.

This is basically what FDS says in general. When they show disrespectful behaviour, block and move on. Don't explain the red flags, because they learn to hide the red flags to better dupe the next woman.

It is tragic, but I've learned in life that I can't force other people to see me as their equal human being. I can try, and I can have some success, but I need their cooperation. I don't control them. Sometimes people argue or discuss things in order to understand or come to a mutual resolution. And sometimes the "argument" or "discussion" it's merely a tool used to delay, distract, confuse, and try to get intel on someone you oppose or want to exploit.

This is why I actually understand why transactivists says, "this is not a debate." To them, or at least to some of them, it seems too close to debates about whether racism is "valid" or whites are "superior," or more "intelligent," etc... It can also seem similar to debates about whether gay and lesbian people should be "allowed" to have sex, have equal or equivalent civil rights including the right to marry and adopt, etc... of course I'm sure many are simply exploiting it to get carte blanche to be petty tyrants (at best). But there IS a logic to it. Certain things will never be a "debate" to the person whose desires, wants and needs are being "debated." And they will always be a debate to a person who is not personally dependent on the outcome or would benefit from making arguments against it. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

This is one of the paradoxes in life I suppose. So I can understand why they use that slogan, why I think it's dehumanizing and wrong in some instances to debate a person's claims arguments, etc..., and I can also understand how a reaction against it gets used to carry out tyranny and abuse under the guise of taking an opposite-momentum political position.

But back to the "debates." One of the things I think might be true is that men don't respect women much. And even women often don't respect other women as much as we respect men. I don't know if this is all nurture; I suspect not. I think some of it is just the nature of who we are as people. Our non-human ancestors and living relatives, such as Bonobos and Chimpanzees, had conflicts and hierarchical structures and still continue to work through them today (though apparently they're much less brutal among Bonobos, our closer relative, than Chimpanzees). There might be something in us that responds to hierarchy. And males are always stronger than us. They are faster. They are built to take blunt trauma in a way that we are not. It's as simple as that. A lot of these traits, including the hierarchical group structures we and our living relatives perpetuate, have had an evolutionary advantage or they wouldn't exist.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's destiny or inevitable or excusable. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean "better," just more adapted to a situation. Think of the living cockroaches that were found among the rubble of the Hiroshima bombing. They're survivors, they're adaptors. They were created by nature and have a place in our world. They have important ecological functions. It doesn't mean they aren't pests or can't get out of balance or that they must be so much more enjoyable to spend time with than, well... lots of other plants, animals and insects.

But back to "debates" and "arguments." I think I try to keep in mind how much men often simply don't respect me they way they do other men. And they don't have to. They know the odds are that I'm much less likely to be violent or dangerous if they treat me with less respect than a man. And even if I try to react with violence, it's a non-starter. 99 times out of a hundred, I would lose that fight if they fought back. That is aside from their natural propensity to increased aggression due to the testosterone, their sex-drives which are in some ways simply different than ours, and the world cultures they grow up in. Yes it's the porn, but it's so many other things. It's the ways boys are treated vs girls. Often starting in infancy.

So on the whole, men simply don't respect us as they do other men. How can you have a "debate" or "argument" with men who think their time is worth more than yours, who think they are smarter and need to explain things to you regularly, etc...

I still have some debates and arguments with some men, but I understand they're limited in scope and capacity. I feel sort of sorry about this. I think communication is EXTREMELY important. It's unhealthy and counterproductive to constantly cut everyone out of your life to "protect your peace." But sometimes you have to do it. You can't have endless arguments, especially with men who simply don't believe you are equal to them (whether or not they're conscious of it), and who often want to provoke you anyhow because attention from a woman, even angry attention, still feeds their desire for female attention.

drain on women’s energy

It invigorates me. I love arguing with them because they get so mad and sound so stupid. It's entertaining, a mild sport, if you will.

I think this article has valid points about men not being open-minded and about conversations rarely being successful in changing men's minds. However, I disagree with the conclusion the author draws that separation from men is the only solution.

Misogyny is not merely a misunderstanding that can be corrected with a few well-placed arguments. It is a deeply entrenched system of belief, reinforced by centuries of patriarchal conditioning. It is not something that can be dismantled by one or two logical conversations.

I agree with the fundamental point that the structural issues that cause VAWG won't be solved by individual conversations, and that those conversations may not often be successful. However, I think that even if you don't change the mind of the man you're having a discussion with right away, you're exposing him to criticisms of his beliefs, and that's the first step to him changing those beliefs.

Debating men online is never going to bring about the end of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, or systemic misogyny.

Again, I agree with the premise of this argument. Someone who is open to hearing feminist arguments is not likely to be the person who is committing violence against women, so even successfully arguing for radical feminism is unlikely to address that issue. However, I don't know how you can expect your ideas to proliferate –and gain enough support to be implemented in policy– if you're unwilling to expose them. I think there's value in putting those ideas out there regardless, so that they can be seen by others and gain a greater foothold in the cultural consciousness. Refusing to discuss your beliefs with men also cuts your audience in half, which is something that I don't think an already-marginalised perspective can afford.

True progress lies in separating from men, both online and in real life.

While I can understand this conclusion, I don't think this is a feasible course of action. Men make up 50% of the population and if you want to actually implement radical feminism in policy then you'll have to interact with and convince them.

Many don't engage in discussions to learn, but to "win". Its why they're so interested in debates. Such is just another form of competition to them.