Irene: Neither, thank you, and I think that your last comment was completely out of line.


T : Which comment? You were asked a question. Your actions speak to the presence of an attitude, and leave an impression on the observer. Is it one that you wish to have left? And is the subconscious attitude expressed through your actions, at that point, one that you would wish to consciously embrace? If not, perhaps it is time for a little self examination to bring those tendencies that run contrary to the nature of the person you want to be, under firmer control.

Consider your own actions. You subverted honest discussion in order to take a short cut to victory. Such reckless laziness, at that moment! Did you imagine yourself so morally superior to him, that for you to reach him honestly on a rational, moral level would be futile? That you had to short out his own critical thinking, so that you could substitute your own thoughts, for his, by isolating him, and then browbeating him? Consider the subconscious impact, of your implicit assertion that his position - his reluctance to say yes - was one that others should not feel so free to argue, as yours. One that if argued, should meet with confrontation, rather than response. You intimidate him, but do it on a subliminal level, where, until takes the time to carefully examine his feelings, he might not even realise that you are acting, and know to take that action into account when evaluating his reactions to your comments.

If these observations offended you, an apology would not, and should not be forthcoming. Nor would I be disturbed by your anger, if this were the case. Those who will not examine their own motives beyond the surface level, leave themselves capable of rationalising the most reprehensible behavior, and I have no desire to experience the joys of passive aggression firsthand.

May I hope that this will not be the case, here?


Irene: I think that we're getting a little carried away.


T : This, from someone who just tried to argue that criticism was a form of censorship.


Irene: In other words, "you're another"?


T : In other words, I am suggesting that you lack the perspective needed, for your subjective impressions regarding the reasonability of another's perceptions to serve as a reliable source of insight.

Also, I am fascinated in the way in which you use hostility in support of an argument, that one should never respond to an argument with hostility. It has a nice touch of irony, to it.


Irene: OK, maybe we do need to cool down. How about if we all refrain from personal attacks, and keep this on a rational level.


T : I would like that.


Irene: So, you'll agree to lay off Robert?


T : No, of course not. My criticism of him didn't come out of the clear blue, it was a reasoned response, explained at length. Nor do I consider what you have just attempted here to be an honorable attempt at making peace. If I accept this "truce", I will be going along with the very demand that you spent this argument trying to get me to acquiesce to. It's as if you played "good cop, bad cop", with yourself cast in both roles. You act to create anxiety, and then act as if you wish to make peace. While your opponent's guard is down, you slip in a request for total capitulation to your demands as if it were a minor thing, that would bring peace with this 'nice person' - yourself - whose kind feelings your opponent and audience, you hope, will feel that he shouldn't squander.

You hope that the listener will forget who it is, that initiated hostilities in the first place, and that you merely offered to break off, that which you began, and were wholly responsible for.

But this concession was the whole subject of the argument. What manner of compromise is it, in which you get the other to give you everything you want, without having to rationally justify your demands? You haven't ended hostilities, you've merely pursued them more covertly.


Irene: OK, that's it, I'm out of here.


T : Thank you for making my point for me.


Irene: What point? ................. (stops, looks skeptical)


T : That this civility you feign is a mask for an attitude just as aggressive as Robert's, only even less open about what it is.


Irene: You're the one who got hostile.


T : You're the one who attempted rationalisation after rationalisation, seeking for an excuse to claim that I did wrong by arguing openly in favor of a position that you didn't care for, and then started to storm off because I wouldn't allow you to dictate to me what I could or could not talk about or openly say. This, from one who claims to be in favor of free speech. "Do as I say, and not as I do" would be your motto, I guess.


Irene: I think that this is unfair.


T : Think what you wish, reality remains what it is. I did not attempt to censor you, but you did attempt to censor me, going on to try to hide your attempt behind an ill considered more. Hoping, perhaps, that people wouldn't think about what it is that you were trying to do, because they would feel so at ease with what you did.

There is an attitude in our society, so entrenched that people have stopped thinking about it, or even consciously noting that it is there, that any woman who is bothered by a line of discussion, has a right to cut it off, unilaterally. That anyone who ignores this wish is being rude. You have played on this attitude, by trying to claim that a refusal to do as you wish here, is rude hosility. But it is nothing of the sort, and the traditional attitude that you try to make use of here, is one devoid of justification. It is one that would make the rational discussion of criticisms of popular consenses almost impossible whenever a large group of women was present - which is to say, almost ever - because any one of them could kill a line of argument, on a whim. Look at the exchange of platitudes that discussions have become.

This is part of the reason why.

Having sought to inspire anger in those around, in response to my refusal to be silenced, you now speak of hostility, when it is so clearly to be found in your actions. Robert, at least, does his own dirty work. You would use others as your proxies, in browbeating your opposition, playing at being a victim, as you do.

Yes, you are free to do this - as I am free to not take you seriously if you decide to do so, and call you on it, so that others won't take you seriously either. If you want to walk off in a huff, because you aren't getting to decide which topics are open for discussion, feel free. All can see the act for the tantrum it is. The act of one who knows she can't prevail through the strength of her arguments, and so has to resort to this instead.


Elaine: So? You gave heat to Robert, and Irene gave heat to you. What goes around, comes around.


T : Ah, good. I'm glad you agree. Robert adopted an attitude, and so I adopted one in turn, as I rightly should. Like you say, what goes around comes around. But then, as I did nothing wrong, given your own position, what did Irene have left to set right?


Elaine: Don't be foolish. You know full well that two wrongs don't make a right, so don't try to pretend that they do.


T : So, Irene was wrong to respond to hostility with hostility? But you just said that she was right to do so. You seem quite confused on this point.


Elaine: But it isn't a wrong, because your hostility against her justified it. It isn't the same thing.


T : So, you're saying that hostility is a good thing. Then why are you upset about my response to Robert?


Elaine: I didn't say any such thing. Hostility is a very bad thing.


T : So, Irene responded to a wrong with a wrong?


Elaine: Yes, but ....


T : Admit it, Elaine, you've adopted two completely contradictory rules, and you switch from one to another as needed. Popular position or not, this is not philosophy, this is posturing. You're using the language as a tool to get people to do what you want, not as one to exchange ideas and find out if what you want is right.


Irene: OK, enough, you've made your point, and are beating it to death.


T : Yes, I do that, Irene. If people were willing to be honest, without a struggle, I wouldn't have to. God knows, I don't enjoy it.


Irene: Nor do we. Could we get back on subject, without the personal stuff, finally?


T : As long as this isn't another disguised attempt to get me to concede a point that I don't agree with, no problem.


Irene: No, it isn't going to be one of those. A little more trust, now?


T : We'll see. I hope so.


Irene: Fine. Now, let me see if I understand your position.


T : I've been explaining it, but I'll be glad to summarise, if that's what you want.


continue