I harbor no anticipation that anyone will acknowledge the soundness of my viewpoint. Therefore, no expectation of winning an argument.
When considering theory, I like to test my ideas. I consider alternative interpretations of feminists' data and evidence. Feminists are ideologues. They adhere to interpretations that support their ideology. I offer my interpretation which usually is inconsistent with feminist ideology. Feminists will challenge my interpretation. They will contest any interpretation that fails to support their ideology.
My aim is to determine whether my interpretation can withstand a determined feminist challenge. The soundest and most solid ideas are those that have been forged in the crucible of adversarial debate.
If they survive, they come out stronger. If they are weak, to begin with, they perish.
How feminists label men is irrelevant to me. I respond to the substance of their ideas. If they present nothing but labels and accusations, it tells me that my thoughts have survived the crucible. Being prejudged to be wrong is what makes it a crucible in the first place. It is a useful start to forging more solid ideas, or vaporizing weak ones.
I sometimes ask questions designed to draw them off script. If the ideological script doesn't contain an answer to my question she is forced to think for herself. If she is incapable of thinking for herself she will resort to labelling and accusations. If she can think for herself, it results in an interesting, and usually cordial, conversation.
My response to any expectation that I toe to feminist thought is to declare:
I recognize no obligation to conform my conduct, my thoughts, or the content of my conversations to feminists' expectations.
