![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I might as well just admit that most of the interesting links I find are found on Andrew Ducker's daily list on Dreamwidth. This one was:
Stop Telling Women How They Should Talk
https://mashable.com/2018/08/22/vocal-fry-upspeak-women/?europe=true#dwxjvRQG4Sq9
This is an example of the use of distraction to derail an argument by someone who is losing.
Well, it is a lot more than that. It is also an example of the incessant policing of women's voices, hair, lips, behaviour, clothing, shoes, friends, jobs, university degrees, blah de blah de blah for nice-girl-appropriateness. All of the points that Rachel Thompson makes are true and important, and I encourage you to read her article.
I, however, want to talk about the use of objection to someone's vocal tic in the midst of an argument as a deliberate derailing tactic (and also a tacit admission that the objector is losing) and my declaration of war on this tactic.
So, this is a form of ad hominem - attacking tone instead of substance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
People use objection-to-tone all the time to derail or deflect or diminish things they don't want to hear: "don't be snippy" "don't take that tone with me" "watch your language" "no one likes a smart aleck". Sometimes it's your parent or your boss and you have to knuckle.
When it is your colleague or coworker or drinking buddy, though, you need to decide how valuable (or dangerous) they are to you before you do what I'm going to suggest. I'm going to suggest that you be a bitch.[1][2]
In the past I have been left with my mouth hanging open when I thought we were having an interesting argument and learning new things, and the person disegages the argument by calling me on my tone or spittle or whatever. I have been speechless (and so appear to have conceded the argument) because I am always surprised (and shamed[3]) when someone stoops to this tactic.
I have decided that, depending on how much I value/fear (or don't) the partner in the argument, if they derail the argument with "wow, you're shrill" or whatever else is meant to embarass me and stop me, then I am going to call them on it. Either outright: "so, you admit that you are losing the argument" or indirectly by going to something completely opinion-based and unrelated: "well, I'm really glad there's less smoke in the air today" or "well, I'm always sorry when the days start to get shorter" or whatever.
I am detailing this because I find rehearsing a plan helps me carry out the plan. An example is my response to telemarketers: "Thank you for calling but we're not interested bye for now" and hangup. No pause, no listening to blandishments, no engaging whatsoever. They have their script and I have mine. If it is a begging caller, I might change my response to "Thank you for calling but we're not able to help at this time bye for now" and hangup, depending on how worthy I think the cause.
Telemarketers have always traded on the call sounding like a social invitation, and back in the day when it was a new tactic, it was easy to get sucked into worrying about the tender feelings of someone who had invaded your privacy to flog their nasty crap. Developing a canned response was a relief. Because I have a lot less emotional investment in how I sound to a stranger (am I polite enough? am I too harsh? what will they think of me?) I am not nonplussed by anything they might say. I have decided that I now want to be ready with that kind of low-investment response for anyone who betrays the unspoken agreement to argue in good faith.
You know best whether you want to endure the fall-out from saying that you think the other person thinks they are losing the argument. In some cases I might live to regret having done it, but it might be very satisfying at the time. I suspect that I will go for the unrelated opinion, and the more inconsequential the better, because it would be fun to be as unanswerable as the "shrill" comment[4].
Sometimes a colleague needs to be called on their argument derailing, and if possible trained away from doing it to you/me. If that means they no longer wish to engage me in just-passing-some-time arguments, I call that a win.[5]
[1] - there has been a blending lately: men and women get called bitches when they are being petty and selfish (or someone wants to label them as such), and men and women get called bastards when their actions are harmful (or someone wants to label them as harmful). Someone who flips you off in traffic is bitchy whereas someone who keys your car is a complete bastard.
[2] - the partner in the argument is certainly going to call you a bitch - but someone who uses derailing tactics will be calling you a bitch before long anyway, so you might as well cut to the chase.
[3] - because I have suspended my natural distrust and shared my genuine opinion - which in derailment becomes obvious that it has not been valued as such, and so I have obviously misunderstood the invitation.
[4] - you can't tell someone that they don't find you shrill. You can say "but I am not shrill" and as soon as the person says "you sound shrill to me" you are in opinion-zone and there is no useful reply.
[5] - yes, I know: did not did too did not did tooooo! :)
Stop Telling Women How They Should Talk
https://mashable.com/2018/08/22/vocal-fry-upspeak-women/?europe=true#dwxjvRQG4Sq9
This is an example of the use of distraction to derail an argument by someone who is losing.
Well, it is a lot more than that. It is also an example of the incessant policing of women's voices, hair, lips, behaviour, clothing, shoes, friends, jobs, university degrees, blah de blah de blah for nice-girl-appropriateness. All of the points that Rachel Thompson makes are true and important, and I encourage you to read her article.
I, however, want to talk about the use of objection to someone's vocal tic in the midst of an argument as a deliberate derailing tactic (and also a tacit admission that the objector is losing) and my declaration of war on this tactic.
So, this is a form of ad hominem - attacking tone instead of substance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
People use objection-to-tone all the time to derail or deflect or diminish things they don't want to hear: "don't be snippy" "don't take that tone with me" "watch your language" "no one likes a smart aleck". Sometimes it's your parent or your boss and you have to knuckle.
When it is your colleague or coworker or drinking buddy, though, you need to decide how valuable (or dangerous) they are to you before you do what I'm going to suggest. I'm going to suggest that you be a bitch.[1][2]
In the past I have been left with my mouth hanging open when I thought we were having an interesting argument and learning new things, and the person disegages the argument by calling me on my tone or spittle or whatever. I have been speechless (and so appear to have conceded the argument) because I am always surprised (and shamed[3]) when someone stoops to this tactic.
I have decided that, depending on how much I value/fear (or don't) the partner in the argument, if they derail the argument with "wow, you're shrill" or whatever else is meant to embarass me and stop me, then I am going to call them on it. Either outright: "so, you admit that you are losing the argument" or indirectly by going to something completely opinion-based and unrelated: "well, I'm really glad there's less smoke in the air today" or "well, I'm always sorry when the days start to get shorter" or whatever.
I am detailing this because I find rehearsing a plan helps me carry out the plan. An example is my response to telemarketers: "Thank you for calling but we're not interested bye for now" and hangup. No pause, no listening to blandishments, no engaging whatsoever. They have their script and I have mine. If it is a begging caller, I might change my response to "Thank you for calling but we're not able to help at this time bye for now" and hangup, depending on how worthy I think the cause.
Telemarketers have always traded on the call sounding like a social invitation, and back in the day when it was a new tactic, it was easy to get sucked into worrying about the tender feelings of someone who had invaded your privacy to flog their nasty crap. Developing a canned response was a relief. Because I have a lot less emotional investment in how I sound to a stranger (am I polite enough? am I too harsh? what will they think of me?) I am not nonplussed by anything they might say. I have decided that I now want to be ready with that kind of low-investment response for anyone who betrays the unspoken agreement to argue in good faith.
You know best whether you want to endure the fall-out from saying that you think the other person thinks they are losing the argument. In some cases I might live to regret having done it, but it might be very satisfying at the time. I suspect that I will go for the unrelated opinion, and the more inconsequential the better, because it would be fun to be as unanswerable as the "shrill" comment[4].
Sometimes a colleague needs to be called on their argument derailing, and if possible trained away from doing it to you/me. If that means they no longer wish to engage me in just-passing-some-time arguments, I call that a win.[5]
[1] - there has been a blending lately: men and women get called bitches when they are being petty and selfish (or someone wants to label them as such), and men and women get called bastards when their actions are harmful (or someone wants to label them as harmful). Someone who flips you off in traffic is bitchy whereas someone who keys your car is a complete bastard.
[2] - the partner in the argument is certainly going to call you a bitch - but someone who uses derailing tactics will be calling you a bitch before long anyway, so you might as well cut to the chase.
[3] - because I have suspended my natural distrust and shared my genuine opinion - which in derailment becomes obvious that it has not been valued as such, and so I have obviously misunderstood the invitation.
[4] - you can't tell someone that they don't find you shrill. You can say "but I am not shrill" and as soon as the person says "you sound shrill to me" you are in opinion-zone and there is no useful reply.
[5] - yes, I know: did not did too did not did tooooo! :)
