An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

Feminists are excellent at is controlling the mental framing of an argument. Notice that in every instance that Mike made a point, that she immediately changed the scope of the conversation. She does not announce “I am now changing the scope!” She does it entirely by presupposition, in a fluid manner. This is the tool that all skillful Feminists use, I would guess, 80% of the time. The benefits is that it seems conversationally “natural” and that to to stop the technique, one must get bogged down by refuting the presupposition, point by point, where as a response she need only apply the very same technique to the rebuttal. The only way to counter this that I’m aware of is to be able to simultaneously shift the frame again in such a way that her presuppositions are refuted, presuppositionally, and to grab the frame back and hold it.

This highlights, what I think is a difference in classical communication style between men and women. People who have “a masculine mindset” tend to all make the same error when dealing with such people: we reach for the explicit. But, like sex that does not need words, acceptance of ideas is often based on the non-verbal, and being explicit is actually counter-productive.

This particular debate about sexual consent on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ provides a text-book example of both the arguments, techniques used. There are also two members, a man with short and white hair, and the woman sitting next to Mike Buchanan who simply nail it.

This video is worth keeping kept as a case-study.

Tagged , , , ,

One thought on “An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

  1. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    Even if a woman says, “Yes.” she might still regret it later, which makes verbal consent pretty irrelevant with regards to long-term emotional well-being.

    As long as the guy isn’t being physically violent, I don’t think it’s a crime. If a woman can’t speak up about not wanting to have sex (or if she can’t summon the courage to push the guy off her), then she’s basically a child and shouldn’t be allowed to leave the house alone (which is the way they do things in some cultures).

    An unarmed, nonviolent sexual advance should not be considered rape in any legal sense of the word. Philosophical issues are a different matter. Philosophically, even cheating on your boyfriend and breaking his heart is wrong (but this also carries no legal punishment).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: