I avoid telling feminists what they should think, do, or say. It is a weak approach. She or he can simply decline to think, do, or say what I am advocating and there is nothing I can do about it. Instead, I would tell them what I will think, do, or say. That puts the feminist in the position of having to convince me to change my mind. It puts me in the stronger position.

I generally limit my engagements with feminists to articles directed at men. In addition to stating what I will think, do, or say, I try to provide male readers with an alternative perspective.

I am unconcerned about feminists who judge men as a collective. It is their prerogative to do so. Again, no matter what I say, the feminist can continue to judge men as a collective. She retains the position of strength. Instead, I convey to men that they do not comprise a collective and need not view themselves that way.

There are women who don't trust men. That is also their prerogative. In my experience most women I encounter tend to trust me. Outside of the internet, I have never been judged as part of a collective.

On this forum, women addressing me have referred to "men like you." My response:

"There are no men like me; I am one of a kind" I often add a picture of a cartoon unicorn.

I have been called an incel. I have a standardized response to that as well:

"Oh no! Somebody called me an incel? I'm crushed."

I also apply that response when called a misogynist or a sexist. I have never been called a wife-beater, but a similar response would apply. I am impervious to insult. I am unprovokable as well.

I don't bother applying labels, such as "misandrist" to my adversaries.

I will discuss theory with intellectually inclined feminists.

I don't mind tossing out a smart-alec remark when one is warranted.