"You're a misogynist!" In this day and age, all men are likely to have this accusation thrown at them again and again over time. There are times when it's best to just walk away from a stupid argument, but ONLY doing this by default is essentially yielding to the frame of others, and can be a missed opportunity to steer individuals and groups away from using this Feminist buzzword carelessly. Even when you've picked your battles, there are times when you need to engage this accusation effectively for the long term, such as with family or co-workers.

Here's how I've used Verbal Judo to better understand and respond to variations of "You're a misogynist!"

I'm sharing my successes, along with mistakes and failures, and look forward to hearing how other men on this sub have dealt with this as well. This is a followup to my post about Verbal Judo theory, offering examples of putting it into action.

A Verbal Judo perspective guides us to avoid the expected move of fighting the accusation head-on, where the attacker expects it and is strongest. Instead, you want to rhetorically pivot away from the blunt force of the attack, and deftly guide the attacker's energy and momentum against them.

"You're a misogynist!" is loaded with presuppositions, which must be recognized so they can be dealt with accordingly. These are the presuppositions or assumptions underlying these three simple words:

  1. Your words and behaviors must result from an underlying hatred of women.
  2. I'm qualified to make this judgement about you.
  3. Whatever you just said or did therefore becomes wrong without further qualification.
  4. You should be silent or leave now.
  5. You should feel (and behave) very ashamed.

Your verbal attacker expects you and observers to agree with these presuppostions and respond to them in a stereotypical manner. I'll refer to them by number below, and for further brevity, assume all examples begin with: "Her: You're a misogynist!"

What has NOT worked

Some responses and avenues of counterattack lead to rhetorical minefields or dead ends. Recognize these on the fly, because better options are usually available. In general, you want to avoid being pulled into the accuser's frame, and choose a weak presupposition to counterattack, instead of the ironclad ones the accuser expects.

Directly confronting (1) is the expected move. DEERing or explaining how and why you're NOT misogynist is the "But my best friends are black" of Feminist tropes.

Me: It wasn't misogynist, this happened to be a gay man talking about his own experience.

Her: Someone can be gay and still be misogynist!

This is a rabbit hole of well-planned traps. I've seen the above example used by Feminists to argue that someone raised by a Feminist mother, and even a WOMAN can be a misogynist. There are no examples solid enough, nor any logic or principles that can't be twisted or abandoned once someone feels you're a misogynist.

Attacking her qualifications per (2). You don't know the boundaries of what she considers as her qualifications, and she's probably got at least one book or semester worth of words to spew in order to make her case, however faulty.

Me: Just because you've taken a Women's Studies course doesn't mean you're qualified to declare me misogynist like that!

Her: I've taken THREE Women's Study courses! So, I know misogyny when I see it, and obviously you don't!

The conversation continued with her acting triumphant in the face of further rebuttals; she wouldn't back down from feeling like she'd "won" so I walked away after a few sentences.

Behaving as though (3,4,5) are true, thus entering her frame. If you carelessly explain why you're not wrong, are silenced, or respond with some form of, "I'm sorry, but..."; it's tantamount to conceding that (1) is true, so you're basically left arguing, "Yeah, I'm a misogynist, BUT..."

Vigorously deny (5) with an anti-PC rant, or other blustery, sounds-guilty response. Humans love simple labels and categories, and once you're pigeonholed as us/them, you'll only ever argue past each other at best, or fall into a well-planned rhetorical trap and lose at their well-honed game.

Him: I haven't done anything wrong! You damn liberals are always trying to push these guilt trips on people!

Her: You sound angry! What is it you're trying to hide or deny here?

Him: I'm NOT ANGRY!

Her: So, you're not angry, either? (Women snicker)

Him: (Fuck!)

I'm not saying you have to become a Feminist, but if you intend to thoughtfully engage or influence them (not just antagonize and bail), according to the principles outlined by Dale Carnegie, it pays to understand a little about their jargon and mindset, and try to find common interests to build upon. "The only way into the citadel of a human's mind is arm in arm with the owner."

Effective responses are more than just scripts.

Communication is more than just words, it involves volume, tone, and inflection of voice, as well as body language like posture, proximity etc. All three channels must be congruent, otherwise credibility is at stake. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized. When someone is sending you mixed signals on these channels, the body language probably reflects the truth. One weakness of neoliberals and SJWs is they can be dogmatic to a fault in their application of rules, making it easy to trip them up by their own standards. Use only the amount of force you need to win the argument, without going over; and make sure you understand the rules you apply, and pressure flips become a powerful countermove in your rhetorical arsenal.

Indirectly confronting (1) by agreeing and amplifying.

Me: Oh yeah, I'm a misogynist all right... have to go back to the office and crack the whip on my binders full of women...

Her: That's awful!

Me: So is declaring someone a misogynist, based on flimsy evidence like that! {Shift to (2)}

Her: Wait no, I didn't mean it like that...

Indirectly confronting (1) using preselection

Me: Women who actually know me would strongly disagree.

Her: I doubt that.

Me: We could call them right now. How many would it take to convince you?

Her: Well, they're probably a bunch of sluts, like I'm going to listen.

Me: That was strangely misogynistic of you to say!

Her: Cusses me out over her shoulder, into an echoy atrium for maximum comedic effect.

Indirectly attack her qualifications (2) by questioning the outcome of her judgement and pressure flip.

Me: You don't know me nearly well enough to make that kind of judgement.

Her: Okay, I didn't mean YOU'RE a misogynist, I meant that sounded misogynistic when you said it.

Me: That's an important distinction to make. I have a real problem with people who don't know me but throw out accusations like that.

Her: Extensive apology and explanation

This started out as a non-flirting conversation, but she turned it in to one after that. We ended up making out on her couch for an hour a week later, but it never went farther because her girl game was shit and completely lacking charm.

Behaving as though 3,4,5 are not true, in a charismatic way, NOT caddish or indifferent. Risky because it may further antagonize the person/group; best if they consider your SMV sufficient. You want to ignore the foolishness and guide the conversation to a better place, not stomp on it and indicate nonverbally that you consider it even 1% true.

This is NOT a Shit Test! The above examples are direct accusations of misogyny, however unfounded; and are NOT a component of flirting. Shit tests, on the other hand, ARE a component of flirting, so they have a much different profile of presuppositions. "You're a misogynist!" in this context means:

  1. I'm interested in you, but I need to discover your rank in the social hierarchy.
  2. Here's a challenge, big boy! Are you an Alpha or a Beta before me?
  3. Could be anything, and this likely won't be the only one, but ummm... Oh! You're a misogynist. There, your move.

Handling Shit Tests is well-covered on TRP; from a Verbal Judo perspective, you win them by satisfying the first two presuppositions. To respond to the third verbally is to miss the point of the shit test, therefore nearly certainly lose.

One more caveat: Verbal Judo won't save your bacon if you're actually making arguably misogynistic statements. It's not a fine line between having this randomly thrown at you like a pejorative, and being like the uncle who spouts uncouth statements and legitimately makes family gatherings become uncomfortable without understanding why.

Women learn verbal manipulation from an early age.

Verbal Judo and understanding the hidden presuppositons within attacks offers a framework that helps one recognize verbal traps on the fly, and to not simply avoid them, but to turn the force of verbal attacks against the user. ^^Edit-Format