arguing trouble

i have a problem arguing with males who's iq ranges from halfway intelligent upwards. i don't argue with stupid ones on principle. because they are bound to run out of arguments. which isn't that bad, but then there's another thing they are bound to get to and those are sexist remarks of some sorts. whether it will imply the woman = no brains theory or the you need to go get laid routine, in 99,9% of the cases, stupid males will get there.

so, that only leaves halfway intelligent or intelligent people to argue with. not all too many, i dare mention >:) . now you may say that the arguing issues with only halfway intelligent males don't cover such a wide range of topics. it is rather narrow and rather simple, too. perhaps not always worth arguing. however, it happens so for this theory's sake, we consider them subjects of this post too.

so, what is it that doesn't let me argue things out properly, since we established it is neither the issue in discussion, neither the other's intelligence. well... i don't know whether it's a typical male thing, but i'd venture to say yes. and i also dare say it only occurs when they argue with a female (unbelieveably so, but i am a part of that sorry half of the species).

now, in an argument, things are bound to heat up. i generally don't hold people completely responsible for what they throw into the battle in its heat. it's all about dealing strikes to the mental construct of the other, after all. however, occasionally, whether by intention or not, those strikes hit home hard. not with the construct, but with the person. it shouldn't happen in a 'clean' arguement, but sometimes it does.

i must admit i am selfish enough not to have noticed the behaviour of others when i was the one to draw blood and i probably did it enough times. to my defense - i didn't observe my reaction either until the idea i am building towards has occured to me. but generally, there are two types of reaction i have when receiving such hits. if they hit really, really hard, i may strike back and strike back hard. i know i can be darn cruel. the other one, which determines a patterned response from my male arguing partners is... "ouch".

it is a statement of the fact that a certain retort really hurt. a mere acknowledgement of the hit taken and possibly a warning that to further insist on that particular point would only cause pain. what i would expect as a response would be the taking of the argument back to a more abstract level. going back from the persons involved to the issue at hand. however, what i got, in four cases with four different persons was... retreat. immediate and unconditional. there was an excuse and a dropping of the whole thing. that leaves me completely unsatisfied. first, because i consider the argument non-productive, since nothing was sorted out; second, because the male retreats and i'm left licking my wounds and brooding over what has caused them.

my guess is that at the "hey, you've hurt me" signal, they get scared. scared of crossing an unwritten line in treating a woman or perhaps going back to the sense that was taught to them in their upbringing. in neither case was the issue picked up again to be argued over. if ever mentioned, it was an apology and an assurance that everything is ok.

now, besides the already mentioned lack of satisfaction of having sorted things out one way or another, there is something else that troubles me. it hit me a couple of days after the one with the argument when i became aware of that patternt, while reconsidering it. i think that women use that precise thing in arguments with men to either win or stop them. make them feel like jerks for hurting them, let them boil in that feeling and then get what you want as ransom for easing their conscience. a mechanism of inter-sex manipulation. i might be paranoic, but i think it is quite often the case.

honestly... i felt like shit every time it happened to me. they felt like shit and i felt like shit for making them feel that way. that was definitely not the purpose. and those are definitely not the cheap tricks i like to use. if puppy eyes don't work, that's it for me in matters of emotional blackmail. that's as far as i go. of course i sulk. sulking is normal. i don't expect anyone to react to it. i get riled up when they do and i generally refuse whatever peace pipe is offered. if i didn't get something when asking, i definitely won't accept it as bribe to stop feeling bad about something or someone.

thus, i worry that my "ouch, you've hurt me" in an argument might be perceived as some sort of backdoor women use to have their way. or their point. or their whatever. i hate sexist stereotypes. i dislike being labelled in general and i dread being labeled for what's between my legs. i've waged war on such labels as far back as i can remember to the point of doing stuff out of sheer spite of precisely those neatly prescribed patterns of behaviour. and i ended up having arguing trouble... :(

one day....

i seem to see ahead in a kind of way. i know we are going to take a very long road, into darkness; but i know i can't turn back. it isn't to see elves now, nor dragons, nor mountains, that i want - i don't rightly know what i want: but i have something to do before the end, and it lies ahead.

j.r.r. tolkien, the lord of the rings, book one, chapter IV - a shortcut to mushrooms

not now... but some day... when the darnkess lifts... i'll see the Road... and i'll bear this in mind. i have something to do. something that i owe myself. and it lies ahead. and elves and dragons will always surround me.

the toilet blog

how many people out there watch(ed) ally mcbeal? ok, ok, lower your hands, no need to poke my eyes out. i just needed a smart introduction. well, even if you've only fleetingly watched the series, you will have noticed that some of the best, funniest, smartest, most interesting, revealing and important moments of an episode's plot happens not in the courtroom or in the office, but in.... the toilet.

whether it's the biscuit gathering courage in front of the mirror by doing barry white impressions, people making love in the stalls, conversations being overheard, or just meaningful sighs of characters while looking at their own reflections... it happened there. of course, the fact that it was a unisex toilet was important in all this. and it's usually the "oh, i didn't know you were here" thing that played a part.

well, i hate public toilets. i hate the fact that people who happen to be in the room hear you peeing. i know, i know, it's natural to pee and the toilet is the place to do it. but i don't like it. it's even worse with poo. and god forbid you need to fart. that's downright embarrassing - toilet or not.

when i go to the toilet at work, and there's someone there at the sink or in the other stall... i usually wait until they leave the bathroom before i get out of my stall. don't ask why. i just don't consider public toilets a place to look strangers in the eyes. am i weird in this?

now don't tell me i'm weird just for writing about it. there are serious, scientific surveys about bathroom behaviour. people get paid for putting toilet users in categories according to toilet rituals, the way they fold their paper, wash their hands, what they do while peeing or pooing or how they keep their trousers while sitting on the throne. there is nothing off with my post here, seriously. i was just expressing some apprehension towards public toilest.

i might be too prude for all i know. but toilets should make you feel comfortable and safe. you should know no one is busting in on you, no one overhears any weird noises you might make - be it sighs of relief or concentration or just a plop in the water, where you don't hear others gossiping, possibly even about you; where you can spend some quality time with yourself, being excused from the world with a very acceptable and undeniable reason; where you can relax reading instructions from detergent bottles of have a good time with your favourite book, and maybe a bottle of coke next to you or just meditating about insightful and deep philosophical issues. under no circumstance should it be a place where you mind social conventions and have cramps because you force yourself not to make sounds...

well... so much musings for today. excuse me... am off to read a book ;)

sorry, folks...

... to impede your direct communication with me (i know you are all dying to do that, of course ;) ). however, there is someone reading this blog who seems inconsiderate enough not to want to take hints, who doesn't mind having her comments deleted and who continues to bug me despite all requests to stop. proof thereof is in the comment below, which, unlike others by the same person, i have chosen not to delete so you can see it.

thus, i see myself forced to turn on comment moderation on my blog. your comments will thus appear only after they have been manually approved by me. i check my mail frecquently enough to ensure that that happes as soon as possible. sorry for the inconvenience, but i have had it.

and you, my dear, instead of declaring your endless love to me, had better return what is mine and then let it be. by that i mean my books that i have lent you over a year ago. it was before christmas last year that you promised to return them via a friend - none have reached me so far. i would've appreciated that more than undercover birthday presents (by the way, i'm not that stupid) that i neither needed nor wanted and that i am sorry to inform you, i have thrown away.

hasta la vista.