Feminist rhetorical tactics usually revolve around using some form of sexist labelling and shaming in order to shut their opponents down.
These tactics work primarily because many Beta men have a fear of being perceived as being sexist and hence can be arm-twisted into submission by the mere threat of being labeled as a sexist by a feminist.
This is a form of ad hominem frame control- by using terms and labels that redirect the focus of a debate into being framed in terms of the opposition being sexist, feminists can gain significant rhetorical advantage either by discouraging people from supporting their opponents (“are you telling me you support a sexist?”), or by making their opponents reluctant to push their own positions too hard in fear of crossing OB markers and getting labeled as sexist.
The problem with many people who engage SJWs and feminists is that they assume these people are acting in good faith and are here to engage in an exchange of ideas. What is actually happening is that the SJW/feminist is on a religious mission to spread their gospel. You either are an ignorant pleb that needs to see the light if you have no opinion or an enemy that needs to be destroyed without mercy if you have ideas that oppose them.
Remember, they have no interest in discussion, just a one way dissemination of “facts”.
One rather common feminist tactic is use of the term “mansplaining”, which is a term used to describe a clueless man attempting to talk or explain something to a woman in a condescending way, often when they know less about the topic than the person they are talking to in question.
Now there are many men in which “mansplaining” is a valid critique of their discourse, talking too much and making assertions that you can’t back up is a bad habit that any masculine man would do well to curb.
However we aren’t talking about the use of mansplaining in this context, but rather it’s abuse as a tool of feminist rhetoric to shut down valid debate.
In such use, the term “mansplaining” is liberally tossed out by tumblrina SJW/feminists as a means of discrediting the opposition, even if the term itself is not an accurate description of what is actually happening.
A good example would be having a feminist claim you are “mansplaining” when you bring out a comprehensive and coherent set of facts to demonstrate why her assertions on there being a gender pay gap is false.
The use of “mansplaining” in this case is a distraction, an attempt to discredit what you are saying by invoking the cultural meme of the stereotypical sexist clueless man speaking more than he actually knows.
All this isn’t true of course, if you are a well-prepared social insurgent you would have done your homework are are brimming with an arsenal of facts and logic to lay waste to most tumblrina feminist claptrap. The use of “mansplaining” is an incantation, an attempt by the feminist to shift the debate out of the real of facts and logic and into a kafkatrap where they can accuse you of a thoughtcrime and discredit you accordingly.
So what do you do?
Don’t play ball. The biggest mistake you can take is to adopt their frame and try to deny that you are “mansplaining”. When you do that you are meeting the debate on their terms and any denials of their accusations is taken as proof that you are mansplaining, sexist, and hence discredited.
Maintain your frame, stick to the core of your argument and carry on dishing out the logic and facts, putting emphasis on how they are unable to answer your points coherently. “Mansplaining” is often a desperate bid by a feminist to tip a losing battle in her favour, recognise it for what it is, ignore it and press on your attack. They will yield.
If you really want to be badass, take the initiative and call them out for “mansplaining”, making their attempt at an using a feminist ad hominem backfire to discredit their own case instead. Mitch Fifield is a class act at this, turing a staple of feminist rhetoric with verbal jiu-jitsu to make Katy Gallagher look stupid for attempting to bring Tumblr-level discourse into parliament:
This is a good example of giving back to them better than they dish out. Note how Mitch successfully seizes the initiative of the debate and turns the use of “mansplaining” into one that casts doubt on the credibility of the person trying to use the term on their opponent instead, now Katy is forced to explain why she isn’t the sexist for using the term!
This is frame control at it’s finest, and if the media reports on this incident are anything to go by, Katy Gallagher would probably think twice before trying that again. Humanity wins.
Control the frame, never back down to their rhetoric.
Remember, you are playing for the neutral observer in debate, not trying to convince the SJW/ feminist. They can toss out all the labels they want in an attempt to discredit you, but keep cool, stick to your play and be unfazed and they will just end up looking stupid. Tried this many times, and it works like a charm.
This is how to deal with feminist rhetoric, by maintaining your own frame and refusing to submit to theirs. The less you back down to their shaming tactics and maintain a rational, principled frame of mind that does not care about their own subjective feelings on the matter (and hence why they would threaten you with the label of sexist) and the more incontrovertible your case starts to look to the external observer.
If all else fails a feminist can also use these tactics to self-declare that there is no need to continue the debate as the other party is a sexist and hence there is no need to carry on a discussion. Just observe any debate in which a feminist tumblrina is getting wrecked by a person who holds his ground and refuses to submit to her frame. The probability that she will resort to bailing in such a way as the thread develops approaches 1.
In any case this face-saving cop out fools nobody. The feminist trying all this will only add to the growing impression that they are a group that can’t be reasoned with, only discrediting themselves in the eyes of the neutral observer.
Either way you win.