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... :(