Why do women argue like this?

[Beautiful Border]

Have you ever noticed this thing women do, where they'll say something open to criticism, and then when you try to respond to it they take your criticism as somehow validating whatever they said, essentially using the fact you have a problem with what they originally said as saying something negative about your character?

It's similar to (but not quite the same thing as) Kafkatrapping, because it's not even necessarily about proving the original statement is correct. Instead it's like the original statement is more like bait, more like a means to an end.

An example: I saw a woman the other day say she agrees with Florida raising the age you can be a stripper to 21 because it protects young women. Someone responds to her and asks if she also thinks the military enlistment age for men should be raised to 21 to protect young men. Instead of responding to what he said directly (i.e taking a stance on the enlistment age for men), she goes straight to "Why are you so desperate to fuck 18 year old girls? Is it because they're just out of high school? You'd go younger if you could!".

This was also what that whole "bear vs. man" thing was the other week. Lots of women making the obviously absurd claim they would feel safer around a wild animal than a random man. Any men who pointed out how this was based on flawed reasoning and/or a misunderstanding of statistics were immediately met with accusations they didn't care about women's safety, that it's valid that women don't feel safe around men, that they were the reason women would pick the bear and so on. The fact the original stated position was a nonsense then gets lost in the noise.

And I've noticed that only women argue like this. I'm not saying that as a general rule, either. I've quite literally never seen a man act like this. So what gives? Is there just something about women's brains that's behind this? Or more accurately, why don't men do this, not even seemingly as exceptions to prove the rule?

 

[NyQuilninja]

Just don't you'll never win it's a trap

 

[liquid nitrogen]

the stripper thing is because they're assuming all men are evil so it's about as useful for you to talk to them as a woman talking to a misogynist

the bear thing is half meme half implicit knowledge that the average bear (in the english speaking world) is a black bear, known for being scared of loud noises, while the average man is a shitskin, known for raping women if caught in isolation with them (such as in a forest.)

you're just not accounting for all the factors.

 

[Tekken Enjoyer]

Women are the weaker of the two sexes by a lot, so they evolved to avoid direct confrontation about issues because direct confrontation might lead to physical fights. This is why they're much more two-faced and gossipy than men. Likewise, they evolved to mock/belittle/do whatever they have to do to discredit any direct accusations, all in the name of avoiding a direct confrontation like the plague. It's literally in their nature to not care about the facts of an issue, and only care about what the people around them think about an issue in order to protect themselves. If they have to attack your character then so be it, because their intention was never to express their views based on the facts anyway.

 

[Claude Sigma]

Men and women often do not engage in the same type of discourse, which obviously creates confusion.

Men tend to use a straightforward type of debate, which is called a discussion:

Women tend to engage in another type of debate, based on rhetoric:

Men are usually striving forward to find a solution to a problem, that's how our civilization work, men are problem-solving creatures. You want the best solution possible to a problem, which is when discussion is useful.
Women are focused on self-preservation, because otherwise they are in huge trouble historically speaking. This is why a defensive method such as rhetoric is used. It is not to win per se, women do not care about winning, they care about not losing because otherwise it could lead to ostracism, which is equivalent to death for women anthropologically speaking.

There is a reason why the ancient Greeks saw rhetoric as a feminine and unproductive approach to debate. The issue they had at the time with people practicing this particular form of sophism is that rhetoric cannot be countered, you cannot strike someone that will ignore what you throw at him and just use another weapon right away to see if he can touch you with it. How can you come to a satisfying conclusion to a question against a woman that will call you a virgin with a small dick as soon as you counteract her latest argument? You can't.
And much like it was concluded 2500 years ago, you cannot argue in good faith nor convince someone engaging in rhetoric. This individual is not interested in solving a problem, only in defending his or her position. You do not speak the same language. Just walk away.

 

[Chilson]

Women are the weaker of the two sexes by a lot, so they evolved to avoid direct confrontation about issues because direct confrontation might lead to physical fights. This is why they're much more two-faced and gossipy than men. Likewise, they evolved to mock/belittle/do whatever they have to do to discredit any direct accusations, all in the name of avoiding a direct confrontation like the plague. It's literally in their nature to not care about the facts of an issue, and only care about what the people around them think about an issue in order to protect themselves. If they have to attack your character then so be it, because their intention was never to express their views based on the facts anyway.

Going further into this, in the battle of the sexes the way women get mates was, and still is, very different from how males get mates. Males had to demonstrate higher ability in direct competitions against other males (be it in hunting or fighting) within the tribe in order to attract higher quality females. Conversations/arguments are direct, factual and centered on finding a solution to the problem.

Females on the other hand had to indirectly compete against each other due to their lack of physical ability and to ensure they were not physically damaged when they went through the very physically tasking (and at the time deadly) feat of giving birth. Honing their abilities in emotional manipulation, gossip and other such socially/emotionally orientated strategies of conflict. Conversations/arguments are indirect, emotional and are typically aiming to gain some form of social dominance over the other party rather than trying to solve the problem at hand.

Men have very little chance and don't really gain anything in your average argument with the dear wifey. To the point of not even bothering to engage unless the wife takes it a step too far.

TLDR: There is a reason the stereotype of the quiet husband and the yapping wife exist in virtually every culture on the planet.

 

[Tanuki Mixed Nuts]

It's similar to how on the internet the argument will inevitably devolve into who is mad and who isn't mad. It's just there for people who want to hear themselves talk and not actually discuss things.

 

[merry schizoid]

Don't think too much about female nature. You know the old saying that's been regurgitated a million times. If you want to sustain any fondness you have of them just do your best to ignore the stupidity (99% percent of what they do) and focus on the positive elements such as tits, ass, and the ability to coo— waste your money on doordash orders as she balloons in size.

 

[The Punished Mitch]

Because women are mentally defective.

 

[community member]

She replied that way because she could see what he was doing. A normal person would see her statement and agree with it. The fact he's immediately searching for something he thinks might make her hypocritical is an implicit statement that he can't simply agree with raising the age to be a stripper which is pretty retarded

But ya I would agree there are some better ways to respond to it. Most women don't like war and don't like drafts by extension so I don't see what the problem would be in agreeing to also raise the drafting age

 

[Beautiful Border]

She replied that way because she could see what he was doing. A normal person would see her statement and agree with it. The fact he's immediately searching for something he thinks might make her hypocritical is an implicit statement that he can't simply agree with raising the age to be a stripper which is pretty retarded

But what was he doing? Because to me he was hinting at a bigger question about what rights and responsibilities should be afforded by society at 18 vs. at 21. If you're going to set the age for one adult activity at 21 and another at 18, then what's the reasoning behind that? That's a perfectly valid question, one that could have lead to an interesting discussion about the concept of adulthood. But instead it was turned into a bad faith accusation of being a pervert.

 

[community member]

But what was he doing? Because to me he was hinting at a bigger question about what rights and responsibilities should be afforded by society at 18 vs. at 21. If you're going to set the age for one adult activity at 21 and another at 18, then what's the reasoning behind that? That's a perfectly valid question, one that could have lead to an interesting discussion about the concept of adulthood. But instead it was turned into a bad faith accusation of being a pervert.

It's not an invalid question in and of itself, it's just that the way he's using the question to lead into his response while also granting absolutely nothing about her statement signals that he isn't trying to engage in good faith. so she probably just wrote him off without bothering to invest anything more into the conversation

 

[JamusActimus]

Women just don't know how to argue.

Irl or online there's no point.

Engaging in a debate with a women is fruitless and boring

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

This seems like an example of the larger tendency of people to not realize there are other reasons to be for or against something. It's like with anyone who voices opposition to troons, pro-troons will immediately interpret it as being motivated by hate and bigotry and wanting them to not exist etc. They cannot imagine that someone would have a moral reason to be against what they're doing.

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

Have you ever noticed this thing women do, where they'll say something open to criticism, and then when you try to respond to it they take your criticism as somehow validating whatever they said, essentially using the fact you have a problem with what they originally said as saying something negative about your character?

No, I don't pay attention to what women say.

 

[merry schizoid]

No, I don't pay attention to what women say.

Same. I've never allowed a woman to control me. Even when I was a kid I'd yell at my mom if she tried to get me to do anything. No reason to take someone who's physically weak seriously.

 

[urr13 account]

Her response in this case sounds very out of left-field, almost a non sequitur.

Some women of a certain age seem to carry this belief/insecurity that men aren't attracted to them anymore/only want younger women/etc. and it eats at them.

Even though I feel like the whole men going for younger women thing is less common than its made out to be and most guys prefer a woman in their age group and would probably feel awkward going out with an 18-year-old at 40 or whatever.

Still, her point doesn't make any sense because even if they aren't stripping this dude could still bang them legally at 18, not that anything he said indicated that's remotely his intention but its just that's where her mind went because she probably spends half the day thinking about how men don't want her anymore because she's walled. (something that's probably only true in her head and most dudes would still bang her given the chance).

 

[Dysnomia]

An example: I saw a woman the other day say she agrees with Florida raising the age you can be a stripper to 21 because it protects young women. Someone responds to her and asks if she also thinks the military enlistment age for men should be raised to 21 to protect young men. Instead of responding to what he said directly (i.e taking a stance on the enlistment age for men), she goes straight to "Why are you so desperate to fuck 18 year old girls? Is it because they're just out of high school? You'd go younger if you could!".

The question was probably bait to begin with. Or one of those "b-b-but what about this" retards. Why even ask that as a response to raising the age of strippers. One is about women taking their clothes off. The other is about sending men off to die. These things are not even remotely the same. Her reaction was retarded and she's probably on her period. But interjecting military enlistment into a conversation about strippers just because "Muh sex equality works both ways" is kind of embarrassing too.

 

[Grub]

If they have to attack your character then so be it, because their intention was never to express their views based on the facts anyway.

I think my least favourite is when they do that, but they're not actually mad at you but mad about something else that has nothing to do with you, but you're the one there so suddenly she's mad at you and comes at you with a bunch of fucked up hurtful shit out of nowhere that has nothing to do with literally any of the shit you'd just been talking about and the only ways forward at this point are either you stay calm and manage to calm her down or you fall for her rage bait and you end up arguing for hours over pointless shit and you both just end up feeling drained and sad and regretful by the end.

 

[Ahriman]

Ah yes, the DARVO tactic.