Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeReading PeopleHow to spot a feminist early on ( …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How to spot a feminist early on (and assess whether to date her)

#1 · January 28, 2022, 10:16 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 28, 2022, 10:16 am
Generally speaking, it's better to date non-feminists.
And especially to avoid the ones who are very sold, active, or self-identify with the movement.
It goes both ways of course: for women, it's not good to date men who identify with any ideology that is imbued with misogyny.
And for men, it's not good to date women who identify with any ideology that has its foundations a worldview of "men VS women".
A popular feminist icon looks bellicose in nature
Why Feminism Produce Poor Partners
Definition-wise, feminism is neutral of course.
So it might not be about men versus women, but about dynamics between men and women.
However, that's often only just a part of the movement (it's the same for most oppositional based groups by the way: at the leadership and "literature" level, they all have a cover of objectivity and neutrality).
And albeit most of would vehemently deny it, for many there is an undercurrent, competitive "women VS men" frame that is embedded into it.
It starts with history, such as "men have repressed/enslaved women for all of history (and are still doing it today in more subtle forms)".
That, by itself, is enough to negatively color her perception of men and dating.
And the "struggle against men" often continues to the present depending on how strongly she agrees with the statement that "women still have to fight with men/patriarchy to achieve (whatever it is they need)".
You Can't Have Win-Win With Win-Lose Minded Folks
So, ultimately it goes back to this:
For win-win, you need at least someone who believes in the possibility of win-win.
And feminism may nudge some women for competitive win-loses.
That has a whole host of negative consequences for the long-term.
But even for the short-term...
... It's Just Plain Unpleasant
Competitive approaches surface in all the small and daily things.
So even in the short-term, it's still best to avoid feminists.
... And Turns YOU Into An Angry Player...
Worst of all:
Humans have an inborn tendency for ingroup-outgroup dynamics, picking enemies to antagonize.
Men and women, with their biological differences, provide ready-made groups for people to set up their warring camps.
So an angry partner may pull you into:
Animosity towards women in general (as a response to her covert anger towards men)
Open and active gender-based (ideological) warfare
And the last thing you want is being pulled into some war that you have no business fighting and that drains you of time, emotions, and generally deprives you of productive time and life enjoyment.
The best way to do it?
Avoid a feminist and find a good, cooperative, win-win (feminine) woman.
So, now...
How to spot a feminist
Frankly, you don't need much.
Often, she will tell you.
Or you'll be able to read the signs without any direct question.
However, if you want to be quick, direct, and reliable, here are some tests:

Generally speaking, it's better to date non-feminists.

And especially to avoid the ones who are very sold, active, or self-identify with the movement.

It goes both ways of course: for women, it's not good to date men who identify with any ideology that is imbued with misogyny.

And for men, it's not good to date women who identify with any ideology that has its foundations a worldview of "men VS women".

feminism logo

A popular feminist icon looks bellicose in nature

Why Feminism Produce Poor Partners

Definition-wise, feminism is neutral of course.

So it might not be about men versus women, but about dynamics between men and women.

However, that's often only just a part of the movement (it's the same for most oppositional based groups by the way: at the leadership and "literature" level, they all have a cover of objectivity and neutrality).

And albeit most of would vehemently deny it, for many there is an undercurrent, competitive "women VS men" frame that is embedded into it.

It starts with history, such as "men have repressed/enslaved women for all of history (and are still doing it today in more subtle forms)".
That, by itself, is enough to negatively color her perception of men and dating.

And the "struggle against men" often continues to the present depending on how strongly she agrees with the statement that "women still have to fight with men/patriarchy to achieve (whatever it is they need)".

You Can't Have Win-Win With Win-Lose Minded Folks

So, ultimately it goes back to this:

For win-win, you need at least someone who believes in the possibility of win-win.

And feminism may nudge some women for competitive win-loses.

That has a whole host of negative consequences for the long-term.

But even for the short-term...

... It's Just Plain Unpleasant

Competitive approaches surface in all the small and daily things.

So even in the short-term, it's still best to avoid feminists.

... And Turns YOU Into An Angry Player...

Worst of all:

Humans have an inborn tendency for ingroup-outgroup dynamics, picking enemies to antagonize.

Men and women, with their biological differences, provide ready-made groups for people to set up their warring camps.

So an angry partner may pull you into:

Animosity towards women in general (as a response to her covert anger towards men)
Open and active gender-based (ideological) warfare

And the last thing you want is being pulled into some war that you have no business fighting and that drains you of time, emotions, and generally deprives you of productive time and life enjoyment.

The best way to do it?

Avoid a feminist and find a good, cooperative, win-win (feminine) woman.

So, now...

How to spot a feminist

Frankly, you don't need much.

Often, she will tell you.

Or you'll be able to read the signs without any direct question.

However, if you want to be quick, direct, and reliable, here are some tests:

John Freeman, Jack and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#2 · January 28, 2022, 10:31 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 28, 2022, 10:31 am
Test #1: "Wome have poor sense of direction"
Right on the first spot where you first meet for the date:
You: where are you coming from now
Her: from X
You: cool, which direction is that...
Then, whatever she replies, make a neutral observation about gender generalizations.
IF SHE KNOWS THE DIRECTION...
You say:
You: "ahaha nice, you have a great sense of direction. Most women don't. But you do".
This is especially good because it's both:
Compliment to HER
Light 'power move stereotype' about the gender
You already see the idea, right?
Women who identify as individuals rather than "women" (and "fighting for women") will focus on the compliment to her.
Women with a "collectivist psychology" mindset will focus defending the group.
So:
Feminine individualist: thank you!
And:
Feminist: what do you mean women don't have a good sense of direction
IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE DIRECTION...
You say:
You: "ahaha OK, many women aren't good at directions. I think it's that direction (point to the direction)".
This may not even register with a more easy-going woman, or she may even pile on or agree:
Easy-going woman: yeah, I'm not good at directions
Or:
Easy-going woman: (says nothing, doesn't push back, doesn't take it personally)
A feminist will get annoyed.
BUT...
Now also some high-value, non-feminists women will get annoyed.
A little annoyance and pushback might even be a good sign.
First off, you start with a one-up, and high-value, power-aware women don't appreciate and take one-ups from men who haven't shown higher power yet (they probably will later, once they accept you as "above" her).
And second, you start with an out-of-the-blue generalization, and smart people dislike generalizations (I'd totally push back on any that as well).
Assess her push-back
So the real test is HOW she reacts.
Good push-backs are power-based OR individual-based.
So my pushback would be along the lines "I don't know about most men, I'm me".
Or a one-up back: "and you feel so smart knowing your directions, don't you".
But some strands of feminism frame relationships in terms of gender conflict.
That means that no matter how open-minded or cool you are as an individual, you'll always be (subconsciously) branded as a (bad) man by most feminists.
So a good push-back by her is along the lines of:
Non-feminist: "well, I'm not most women".
Or:
Non-feminist: "that's a generalization".
Or a factual one:
Non-feminist: "I've been living here all my life, I know this city well".
Such as:
if she pushes back, she doesn't get overly emotional and makes it about her, not about women.
Less ideal reactions instead make it:
About men and women in general
Feminist: Who says that men have better sense of direction than women
She challenges an assumption that most people would agree on.
It implies that she has a worldview split around gender, the first step towards "men VS women mindset".
Make it about women VS men (poor)
Feminist: maybe, but women are good at other things
It's a small seed still, but it's a red flag of a worldview based on "being better at", rather than "being complimentary", or neutrally looking at things without taking sides.
Instead, she sees it as a race, and she's gunning for the female camp.
One-ups back on women being superior to men (very poor)
Feminist: that's not true, and women are better at X
This is already a major red flag.
Notice that there was nothing in your initial test that suggests that men are generally superior.
It only that women are generally "not good at direction".
So her reading malice and a "men are better than women" approach in your test shows that she has that mindset.
Gets overly emotional and/or aggressive (worst)
Feminist: (looking emotionally upset) oh, and you also think men drive better or some BS like that?
Or:
Feminist: (looking emotionally upset) please don't tell me you're just another patriarchy supporter or this won't go well
It's not even much what she says now.
It's how she says and how she emotionally reacts to it.
Remember: Emotional reaction = sensitive topic.
So the more emotional and angry she gets, the more feminism, genders, gender wars -and winning the gender war- is relevant to her.
So depending on how annoyed or catty she gets, you can decide whether you want to go on with the date or not.
More to come...

Test #1: "Wome have poor sense of direction"

Right on the first spot where you first meet for the date:

You: where are you coming from now
Her: from X
You: cool, which direction is that...

Then, whatever she replies, make a neutral observation about gender generalizations.

IF SHE KNOWS THE DIRECTION...

You say:

You: "ahaha nice, you have a great sense of direction. Most women don't. But you do".

This is especially good because it's both:

Compliment to HER
Light 'power move stereotype' about the gender

You already see the idea, right?

Women who identify as individuals rather than "women" (and "fighting for women") will focus on the compliment to her.
Women with a "collectivist psychology" mindset will focus defending the group.

So:

Feminine individualist: thank you!

And:

Feminist: what do you mean women don't have a good sense of direction

IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW THE DIRECTION...

You say:

You: "ahaha OK, many women aren't good at directions. I think it's that direction (point to the direction)".

This may not even register with a more easy-going woman, or she may even pile on or agree:

Easy-going woman: yeah, I'm not good at directions

Or:

Easy-going woman: (says nothing, doesn't push back, doesn't take it personally)

A feminist will get annoyed.

BUT...

Now also some high-value, non-feminists women will get annoyed.

A little annoyance and pushback might even be a good sign.

First off, you start with a one-up, and high-value, power-aware women don't appreciate and take one-ups from men who haven't shown higher power yet (they probably will later, once they accept you as "above" her).

And second, you start with an out-of-the-blue generalization, and smart people dislike generalizations (I'd totally push back on any that as well).

Assess her push-back

So the real test is HOW she reacts.

Good push-backs are power-based OR individual-based.

So my pushback would be along the lines "I don't know about most men, I'm me".

Or a one-up back: "and you feel so smart knowing your directions, don't you".

But some strands of feminism frame relationships in terms of gender conflict.
That means that no matter how open-minded or cool you are as an individual, you'll always be (subconsciously) branded as a (bad) man by most feminists.

So a good push-back by her is along the lines of:

Non-feminist: "well, I'm not most women".

Or:

Non-feminist: "that's a generalization".

Or a factual one:

Non-feminist: "I've been living here all my life, I know this city well".

Such as:

if she pushes back, she doesn't get overly emotional and makes it about her, not about women.

Less ideal reactions instead make it:

About men and women in general

Feminist: Who says that men have better sense of direction than women

She challenges an assumption that most people would agree on.

It implies that she has a worldview split around gender, the first step towards "men VS women mindset".

Make it about women VS men (poor)

Feminist: maybe, but women are good at other things

It's a small seed still, but it's a red flag of a worldview based on "being better at", rather than "being complimentary", or neutrally looking at things without taking sides.

Instead, she sees it as a race, and she's gunning for the female camp.

One-ups back on women being superior to men (very poor)

Feminist: that's not true, and women are better at X

This is already a major red flag.

Notice that there was nothing in your initial test that suggests that men are generally superior.
It only that women are generally "not good at direction".

So her reading malice and a "men are better than women" approach in your test shows that she has that mindset.

Gets overly emotional and/or aggressive (worst)

Feminist: (looking emotionally upset) oh, and you also think men drive better or some BS like that?

Or:

Feminist: (looking emotionally upset) please don't tell me you're just another patriarchy supporter or this won't go well

It's not even much what she says now.

It's how she says and how she emotionally reacts to it.

Remember: Emotional reaction = sensitive topic.
So the more emotional and angry she gets, the more feminism, genders, gender wars -and winning the gender war- is relevant to her.

So depending on how annoyed or catty she gets, you can decide whether you want to go on with the date or not.

More to come...

John Freeman, Anon and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#3 · January 30, 2022, 12:26 pm

What an awesome approach!

I think Screening in general is an immensly valuable strategy with so many applications - and as far as I'm aware not too popular.

Not only helps it filtering out value negative/incompatible people, but also categorizing individuals quickly

in what ways one could come together
where possible areas of conflict are, and
to prioritize very great fits/value positive people like in meetup-type settings where time per individual may be scarce.

You mentioned several screening strategies already and I will dig a bit deeper into this topic, because the return on investment is simply huge

in terms of saved time,
avoided value negative people and
correctly priorizing great fits.

There is also potential for further assumptions:

With the given example in particular, collectivist believes tend to come in packages:

If she is a stern feminist, it may also cluster with other hostile idelogies.

If applied correctly people become predictable and transparent quickly. Not allways of course, but some stereotypes tend to exist for a reason.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#4 · January 30, 2022, 5:07 pm

Quote from John Freeman on January 30, 2022, 5:07 pm
Great post, thank you Lucio!
Real-life experience feed-back: it works.
I was at a friend's place to have dinner. His GF was talking about how we don't know how much women are more stressed than us. So I asked her what made her stressed. She started to explain her particular situation. Then she went back to the men vs women.
I told them about your post and how this way of talking was a way to spot feminist (I said it in a diplomatic way of course). I said that it was more of an individual way of coping with stress and that the whole men vs women is not helpful. As we must work together to have happy lives. I said I think the differences are sharper between different socio-economic layers (rich woman vs poor woman) than between sexes.
That is when I realised that her argumentation is really weak and she was taking the victim stance. That she was gaining power through this stance.
She said that she was doing most of the chores and my friend said it was not true, that it was almost 50/50.
As a reminder my friend is a plastic surgeon in training (60 hours a week) and she's an artist. So she obviously has more time. He pays for a big apartment and basically provides more for her as she does for him.
Moral of the story: my friend is married to a feminist and now is stuck with her. She'll play victim when it's useful for her. And also to guilt him. The truth is that he's much higher value than her and she knows it. Both in terms of intellect and general SMV. He could do much better and everybody can see it.
So that's how it gets played out in the real world if you're not careful. You can be a plastic surgeon and be stuck with a low value woman. She's smart, interesting, well-educated and cool, but playing low value games.
Feminism (radical or not) is about promotion of women's interests. So any person denying that idea is trying to hide the fact that feminism is in their interest. Otherwise we would be having a whole different conversation about equality as a value in society.
That's why it's almost impossible to talk about this topic:
We often lack the facts to discuss it (lack of expertise): I know that's my case
We are too partial to the issue: bad emotional experiences for women, sense of unfairness for men (I don't feel like I'm privileged at all! I think modern women have it better because in terms of dating life they have more power AND have access to the job market and university studies).
It's more challenging for them to raise kids and have a career of course. But who said you can have it all? If a man wants to spend time raising his children he also lacks time to have a career. It's not a man/woman thing, it's a (limited) time management and priority thing. You cannot be a champion tennis player and a genius scientist at the same time either.
If you look in Switzerland for instance, you see way more often women with a much higher value man than they are (you're like: this guy is with this woman???). Access to more wealth (through paid labour) for women has actually lowered men's value on the mating market (a large part of our value comes from our ability to access resources). In the past as a doctor I would have access to the best women. Now I'm part of the (slightly-upper) middle class. I still get the skills which are awesome but this does not improve my value on the mating market as it used to do. I'm grateful for all of that. My point is that this victimhood is ill-placed and ill-conceived. It's real in some instances, but it's exaggerated out of proportion.
Your opportunities are generally better as a middle-class woman than as a middle-class man in a developed country in my opinion.
Cheers!

Great post, thank you Lucio!

Real-life experience feed-back: it works.

I was at a friend's place to have dinner. His GF was talking about how we don't know how much women are more stressed than us. So I asked her what made her stressed. She started to explain her particular situation. Then she went back to the men vs women.

I told them about your post and how this way of talking was a way to spot feminist (I said it in a diplomatic way of course). I said that it was more of an individual way of coping with stress and that the whole men vs women is not helpful. As we must work together to have happy lives. I said I think the differences are sharper between different socio-economic layers (rich woman vs poor woman) than between sexes.

That is when I realised that her argumentation is really weak and she was taking the victim stance. That she was gaining power through this stance.

She said that she was doing most of the chores and my friend said it was not true, that it was almost 50/50.

As a reminder my friend is a plastic surgeon in training (60 hours a week) and she's an artist. So she obviously has more time. He pays for a big apartment and basically provides more for her as she does for him.

Moral of the story: my friend is married to a feminist and now is stuck with her. She'll play victim when it's useful for her. And also to guilt him. The truth is that he's much higher value than her and she knows it. Both in terms of intellect and general SMV. He could do much better and everybody can see it.

So that's how it gets played out in the real world if you're not careful. You can be a plastic surgeon and be stuck with a low value woman. She's smart, interesting, well-educated and cool, but playing low value games.

Feminism (radical or not) is about promotion of women's interests. So any person denying that idea is trying to hide the fact that feminism is in their interest. Otherwise we would be having a whole different conversation about equality as a value in society.

That's why it's almost impossible to talk about this topic:

We often lack the facts to discuss it (lack of expertise): I know that's my case
We are too partial to the issue: bad emotional experiences for women, sense of unfairness for men (I don't feel like I'm privileged at all! I think modern women have it better because in terms of dating life they have more power AND have access to the job market and university studies).

It's more challenging for them to raise kids and have a career of course. But who said you can have it all? If a man wants to spend time raising his children he also lacks time to have a career. It's not a man/woman thing, it's a (limited) time management and priority thing. You cannot be a champion tennis player and a genius scientist at the same time either.

If you look in Switzerland for instance, you see way more often women with a much higher value man than they are (you're like: this guy is with this woman???). Access to more wealth (through paid labour) for women has actually lowered men's value on the mating market (a large part of our value comes from our ability to access resources). In the past as a doctor I would have access to the best women. Now I'm part of the (slightly-upper) middle class. I still get the skills which are awesome but this does not improve my value on the mating market as it used to do. I'm grateful for all of that. My point is that this victimhood is ill-placed and ill-conceived. It's real in some instances, but it's exaggerated out of proportion.

Your opportunities are generally better as a middle-class woman than as a middle-class man in a developed country in my opinion.

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano, Anon and B have reacted to this post.

#5 · January 31, 2022, 10:33 am

Quote from Anon on January 30, 2022, 12:26 pm
What an awesome approach!
I think Screening in general is an immensly valuable strategy with so many applications - and as far as I'm aware not too popular.
Not only helps it filtering out value negative/incompatible people, but also categorizing individuals quickly
in what ways one could come together
where possible areas of conflict are, and
to prioritize very great fits/value positive people like in meetup-type settings where time per individual may be scarce.
You mentioned several screening strategies already and I will dig a bit deeper into this topic, because the return on investment is simply huge
in terms of saved time,
avoided value negative people and
correctly priorizing great fits.

Great points!

One could say that screening well is your 80% -well, maybe 80% is too much in this case, but probably 50% or more is fair, and that is HUGE-.

Might deserve its own article and/or lesson:

How to screen people effectively (for high-quality)

Damn, yeah, that'd be a good one.

Going to open a topic on it now, start to collect some ideas if the community has any.
Here:

How to screen people effectively

Quote from Anon on January 30, 2022, 12:26 pm
There is also potential for further assumptions:
With the given example in particular, collectivist believes tend to come in packages:
If she is a stern feminist (...)
If applied correctly people become predictable and transparent quickly. Not allways of course, but some stereotypes tend to exist for a reason.

Great point!

For certain traits and personality, a host of other attached (negative) traits often come in clusters.

An environmentalist is good for example, but she is the type of hostile feminist it's not a pro-social thing, but more something that will be used against you for "not being good enough".
And of course, don't even try to be successful at anything with the communist one, you quickly get branded as the "bad capitalist" :)

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#6 · January 31, 2022, 10:45 am

Awesome write up, thank you for sharing John!

And between the serious and the joking:

Quote from John Freeman on January 30, 2022, 5:07 pm
I told them about your post and how this way of talking was a way to spot feminist (I said it in a diplomatic way of course).
I said that it was more of an individual way of coping with stress and that the whole men vs women is not helpful. As we must work together to have happy lives. I said I think the differences are sharper between different socio-economic layers (rich woman vs poor woman) than between sexes.

Man, respect, you know you've become really skilled when you can tell that to a victim-playing feminist without triggering her too badly :D.

It's like running around a minefield and coming out of it unscathed :).

That's half-joking.

But seriously speaking, navigating those types of minefields, disagreeing deeply while maintaining a positive (or positive enough) atmosphere are golden to improve smoothness and social skills.

I'd still attach a warning here though:

Watch out with these conversations if you care about your relationships with him.
You may become dangerous to her, "persona non grata", and she may seek to undermine you.

John Freeman, B and leaderoffun have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#7 · February 4, 2022, 1:05 pm

Quote from John Freeman on February 4, 2022, 1:05 pm
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 31, 2022, 10:45 am
Watch out with these conversations if you care about your relationships with him.
You may become dangerous to her, "persona non grata", and she'll work behind the scenes to devalue you, pull him away, and cut contact.
Very true. When I started to talk to him about my current work situation (the reason we saw each other was to discuss our work environment) she left after some time. To leave us some privacy and because it was not a topic for her, but still. I could feel that I made her feel inferior. When I left I hugged her to build back rapport. I'll be careful with this.
A story about my female supervisor:
She's a very high quality woman: kind, very smart, generous, humble, hard-working, etc. We get along very well and I almost call her a friend.
That being said she said herself she was a feminist but I did not pay too much attention to it. This was before reading your post.
She said that she likes better female leadership because women are more decisive. She referred to the 2008 subprime crisis when women-led business did better than male-led businesses. I said I don't have the data and I'm going to research it. I kept rapport and stayed rational. Whereas I think it's more individual-based. There are poor male and female leaders (based on my experience).
She said she likes "some men" however.
She said if she had the choice, she would prefer to be a white heterosexual man because they have it better.
Based on this here is my thinking:
Feminist do see the World in a men vs women view. Some is based on reality (History, etc.) some is based on victim mentality. It's totally normal to care for someone's interest. But instead of admitting it, it's disguised as a quest for "equality" (covert frame).
Feminism is about women having more power. Nothing more nothing less. Some will admit it, some won't.
Some women are not ok with being women. Despite having children, etc. They want it all: a nice family and a high-flying career. They blame it on men not to be able to do that. Then they choose the career and are not at peace with not being able to care for their family. So it's a matter of entitlement mentality and not being at piece with your sexual identity.
Some people adopt feminist views after negative experiences with men and may carry unresolved resentment.
It's important to identify feminists early on as Lucio said to:
Prevent going into their preferred conversation: "Men vs Women" or "How men have it better" or "how men abused women", every conversation that frames us as "bad" and them as "good". Them as victims and us as oppressors.
To do this, I think that when the conversation goes there to listen with empathy for a few seconds then move on to another topic.
It’s like arguing with someone who already made up their mind.
Would you do that? No you know it's nonsense. You recognize them as extremists and take appropriate measure of avoidance.
So I think the most important step is to recognize that for many times, the feminism we're talking about is not a political movement for bettering women's rights. It's a social rethoric to shame men for being men. It's misandry.
So how will a heterosexual relationship will fare when one of the two has covered hatred towards men? Exactly.
That's why it's not possible to have a conversation with these people. Can you have a rational with a racist about equality? Exactly.
So the smart move is to move on to another topic. Take mental note this person is a feminist and don't get emotionally involved about this. It's not about you or men. It's about her and her emotional and psychological issues she has not solved.
If we want to talk about equality, family model, women's rights, there are plenty of other reasonable people to have this conversation with.
That being said, I love my colleague. I'll just not have this conversation with her.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 31, 2022, 10:45 am
Watch out with these conversations if you care about your relationships with him.
You may become dangerous to her, "persona non grata", and she'll work behind the scenes to devalue you, pull him away, and cut contact.

Very true. When I started to talk to him about my current work situation (the reason we saw each other was to discuss our work environment) she left after some time. To leave us some privacy and because it was not a topic for her, but still. I could feel that I made her feel inferior. When I left I hugged her to build back rapport. I'll be careful with this.

A story about my female supervisor:

She's a very high quality woman: kind, very smart, generous, humble, hard-working, etc. We get along very well and I almost call her a friend.

That being said she said herself she was a feminist but I did not pay too much attention to it. This was before reading your post.

She said that she likes better female leadership because women are more decisive. She referred to the 2008 subprime crisis when women-led business did better than male-led businesses. I said I don't have the data and I'm going to research it. I kept rapport and stayed rational. Whereas I think it's more individual-based. There are poor male and female leaders (based on my experience).

She said she likes "some men" however.

She said if she had the choice, she would prefer to be a white heterosexual man because they have it better.

Based on this here is my thinking:

Feminist do see the World in a men vs women view. Some is based on reality (History, etc.) some is based on victim mentality. It's totally normal to care for someone's interest. But instead of admitting it, it's disguised as a quest for "equality" (covert frame).
Feminism is about women having more power. Nothing more nothing less. Some will admit it, some won't.
Some women are not ok with being women. Despite having children, etc. They want it all: a nice family and a high-flying career. They blame it on men not to be able to do that. Then they choose the career and are not at peace with not being able to care for their family. So it's a matter of entitlement mentality and not being at piece with your sexual identity.

Some people adopt feminist views after negative experiences with men and may carry unresolved resentment.

It's important to identify feminists early on as Lucio said to:

Prevent going into their preferred conversation: "Men vs Women" or "How men have it better" or "how men abused women", every conversation that frames us as "bad" and them as "good". Them as victims and us as oppressors.

To do this, I think that when the conversation goes there to listen with empathy for a few seconds then move on to another topic.

It’s like arguing with someone who already made up their mind.

Would you do that? No you know it's nonsense. You recognize them as extremists and take appropriate measure of avoidance.

So I think the most important step is to recognize that for many times, the feminism we're talking about is not a political movement for bettering women's rights. It's a social rethoric to shame men for being men. It's misandry.

So how will a heterosexual relationship will fare when one of the two has covered hatred towards men? Exactly.

That's why it's not possible to have a conversation with these people. Can you have a rational with a racist about equality? Exactly.

So the smart move is to move on to another topic. Take mental note this person is a feminist and don't get emotionally involved about this. It's not about you or men. It's about her and her emotional and psychological issues she has not solved.

If we want to talk about equality, family model, women's rights, there are plenty of other reasonable people to have this conversation with.

That being said, I love my colleague. I'll just not have this conversation with her.

B has reacted to this post.

#8 · February 5, 2022, 6:02 pm

Shit-test alternative:

"Who is your favorite musician?" [topic of music in general]

...I bet you like Cardi B type of stuff // Do you like Cardi B?

...Do you know, Cardi B has bragged about taking advantage of men?

...What do you think of that?"

The number of women who excuse / justify this is unbelievable.

PS -- thank you for this post. I had a misandrist do some truly horrifying things to me a year ago. I knew she was "slightly" misandrist, but I was okay with it because she did also hear me out on my perspectives. Only once she suddenly did me wrong big time, did I realize she was not a "slight" misandrist at all. Wish I had seen this post before I had that encounter.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#9 · February 5, 2022, 10:11 pm

Damn, thank you for sharing that TJ.

I wasn't even thinking of that level of nastiness and misandry.

(and sorry to hear about the bad experience, but I suppose that's life and learning is always good)!

I think you test works well for those more extreme types, which are also the worst ones.

By the way, I sent this thread in an email newsletter.
I think it was pretty balanced, starting out saying that both men and women are better off NOT dating misandrists and misogynists.
And that while exceptions always apply, feminism (indirectly) promotes a confrontational attitude and worldview that can foster misandrism.

And this was one reply:

98% of the times, you cannot -and should not- try to argue or convert people like that.

They’re often too entrenched in that view.

Out of curiosity, I googled her email
Deviant art came up -might be another small signal-.

And just to be clear, there are plenty of men like that as well, and also got my fair share of similar messages from men when I talked about misogyny.

And it's the same for extreme racism or nationalism -you'll always have people who are too far gone and too lost into the "war"-.

Edit: however, there are far more extremists when it comes to gender. Our era's biggest "group war" seems to be gender-based. To the point where I'm thinking it might be best to stay away from it at all on TPM.
Not just because it creates a lot of unneeded drama, but because those folks can pollute your mind. There aren't nearly as many in real life instead, and they're easier to sidestep.

When you meet those people, just avoid them and move on.
Because, luckily, and it's never too late to remind ourselves: there are plenty of awesome people in this world.

John Freeman, TJ and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#10 · February 6, 2022, 1:33 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 5, 2022, 10:11
Our era's biggest "group war" seems to be gender-based. To the point where I'm thinking it might be best to stay away from it at all on TPM.

I think your newsletter message was balanced, and the reaction of the person you mention is obviously a wrong overreaction.

This bit of the newsletter sticks out to me as something a bit provocative: “find yourself a nice feminist :)”. Unless that’s the effect you wanted, that could be maybe omitted without changing the message, with the effect of making it even more balanced.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.