Catch Your Hare

Regular readers of the web site I Would Knife Fight A Man will recognise the tools “Ouch” and “Oops”. When you’re offended by something, you say “Ouch”. The person who offended you must then say “Oops”. This enables you to turn attention to yourself while bringing the thread to a juddering halt.

Here’s another, similar, tool. This one is used when you feel a poster is sharing more about themselves than you feel comfortable knowing. Simply let the poster know you are uncomfortable, using the phrase “Whoah! Too much information”. Try using this tool when posters describe copulation, menstrual cycles and similar.

Next time: Tools to let people know you are offended by their grammar.

So here’s this thing that happened. Again, it’s something that I would post on I Would Knife Fight A Man, but it wouldn’t get a sympathetic reception. It may not here, of course, but let’s see.

It’s a dinner around Christmas, not Christmas dinner, but perhaps Boxing Day dinner. There’s me and my girlfriend, my mother and father, my brother and his girlfriend.

We’re drinking tomato juice and begin talking about Bloody Marys: the cocktail with tomato juice, vodka and other things). Naturally, the conversation leads to the other Bloody Mary: Mary I, who hounded Protestants.

My brother’s girlfriend says “I bet they wouldn’t call her that if she was a man”.

We pause until the comment passes and continue the conversation. Later, me and my girlfriend grumble about that comment.

In retrospect, I should have replied. Here’s how the conversation should have gone:

Brother’s girlfriend: I bet they wouldn’t call her that if she was a man.

Me: Why?

Brother’s girlfriend: Well, think about it. How many kings are there with derogatory nicknames?

Me: Oh. Um. Ethelred the Unready?

Brother’s girlfriend: Hardly in the same league as ‘Bloody Mary’, though.

Me: Fair point.

Or alternatively:

Brother’s girlfriend: I bet they wouldn’t call her that if she was a man.

Me: Why?

Brother’s girlfriend: Well, think about it. How many kings are there with derogatory nicknames?

Me: Sure, but Elizabeth, who followed her, was nicknamed Good Queen Bess. So it’s hard to argue that it was a general anti-woman attitude.

Brother’s girlfriend: Fair point.

Now, in either case, we’re not arguing. Neither my “Why?” or her “How many kings are there with derogatory nicknames?” is an attempt to silence the other person. It’s not about being right or wrong.

What’s happening is we’re talking. One person says “I think this thing!” and the other goes “But what about this thing?” and the first one goes “Well, if you consider this thing too” and the other goes “Yeah, OK”.

And there’s no attempt to enforce viewpoints on the other. When either of us says “Fair point”, we’re not saying “I admit I’ve lost the argument”. We’re saying “Interesting. I’ll think about that”.

This conversation helps us both to understand the other’s viewpoint.

That’s why I hate the idea that you shouldn’t question other people’s viewpoints. If someone says “I think this thing is sexist”, of course you should say “Are you sure? What about this thing?”. Because then the other person says “Yes, I know, but this other thing makes it different” and then you both understand a little more.

If you see questions as challenges, you’re losing a lot. You end up with blind, unquestioned assertions – “I think this is sexist” – and no further communication happens.

Statements like this remind me of kneejerk political viewpoints: “I blame the immigrants”, “It’s the government’s fault”, “That Tony Blair is ruining the country”. Of course you question these viewpoints. You ask questions so you understand better. And then we understand each other better.