The gender war so far has been a war of words, of arguments, over beliefs. One thing about the human animal is that they tend to believe very strongly and hold onto those beliefs very passionately. When two different belief systems collide, passions flare and conflict often escalates.
When the US was going through the infamous “Bill Clinton Blowjob Impeachment Trial”, Richard Gephart made a statement that really should go down in history as one of the more famous and perceptive quotes of all time – “Politics is a substitute for violence.” When people collide over what they believe, and see the other side’s beliefs as detrimental to their own well-being, it is quite easy for the disagreement to escalate to violence. But, the only question that violence resolves is who is stronger, not whose belief is correct. And, as human culture and civilization have progressed beyond simply bashing each other’s head in to win an argument, politics evolved as a substitute.
Politics involves debate, and rhetoric, and persuasion, and argument. Men realized that politics was a superior method to resolving conflict over simply being the biggest, baddest, MoFu out there, and bashing in heads until there was no one left to disagree with you. The reason it is superior is because even if you are the biggest, baddest, MoFu around, you’re eventually going to piss off enough lesser MoFus that they will figure out how to cooperate – through politics – and gang up on you to bash in your head. Game over.
Politics is a very complex game. It involves procedures, protocols, and diplomacy, and yes, rules. The most famous set of rules for managing debate and political disagreement is called “Roberts Rules of Order”, often referred to as “Parliamentary Procedure.” The most significant role of a set of rules is that it allows a group to move forward toward making a decision and resolving conflict even if there are some stubborn and unyielding members.
There is a fine line between debate and argument. One simplistic difference is that debate seeks to persuade, while argument seeks to win. For many people, it is more important to be seen to be right than to actually be right – or, to win an argument rather than seek the truth in a question.
There are many questions the truth of which cannot ever be reached or changed by argument. Not everything in life is a “social construct”, and some things have a reality which exists completely separate and apart from what people might believe about it. The question of whether shooting yourself in the foot hurts or feels great is not the least bit affected by how long an argument lasts between people who believe opposite things, or even by who wins by bashing in the other’s head.
In the gender war there are thousands of viewpoints and millions of arguments. Some of them truly are matters of nothing but belief, and much time and energy is spent by people trying to get others to believe as they do. Others are matters which do have an external reality, the truth of which is totally independent of what either party to the argument believes or who wins the argument. Without some sort of rules of order, generally the person who wins an argument is the one who is most stubborn and who cares the least about the actual truth. Most arguments take place outside of any formal body, so there are no rules of order to help things move forward.
The moment one realizes that what may have started as a discussion has slipped into being an argument is the moment to quit it, leave, and do something else. All they are going to accomplish is to force the other person to become even more entrenched in their beliefs, and angrier, producing nothing except animosity and elevated blood pressure. Paradoxically, the people least certain of their position tend to be the ones most stubborn about defending it – seeking the consensual validation of agreement to help them believe that they are right.
A way to imagine this is to imagine two people sitting across a table from each other. On the table is a plate and on the plate is a mushroom. One person thinks the mushroom is poisonous, the other thinks it is delicious. The reality of which it is exists entirely separate and independent of what either of them believes. They can argue until doomsday over whether it is poisonous or delicious, and even if one of them wins the argument that does not dictate the reality of what the mushroom is.
There is only one way to determine the truth or fallacy of either opinion – someone has to eat the mushroom.
Now, in any rational ethical system the one obligated to eat the mushroom and test the competing theories must be the one who believes it is not poisonous. It is quite easy to have very strong convictions when you, personally, have nothing at risk if you are wrong. And, one of the less noble aspects of human beings is that it seems easier still when it is someone else taking all the risk.
One of the most time-honored tests of the strength of a man’s convictions is “put your money where your mouth is” – i.e. put something at risk. If you are so sure you are right, then there is no risk. However, if the argument reflex has simply taken control of you and you have begun to argue for the sake of argument, and to avoid having to say those words that stick in everyone’s throat “I was wwww…..wwwww……wrong” and the point has become to win and seek validation through agreement rather than seek the truth, then putting someone else at risk to prove something you don’t believe strongly enough to put your self at risk, is a moral failure of the highest magnitude.
Most arguments in the gender war are not simple and clear enough that they can be resolved like a poker game – “You think your hand is better than mine? Well, I think mine is better than yours, and I bet $100 it is.” The strength of the other’s conviction is now tested by the principle of “put up, or shut up.” And, who is right can easily be determined by objective reality – the hand with 3 Queens wins over the hand with 2 10s and 2 7s.
When someone is advocating a political or social strategy which you feel is destructive – “poisonous” – argument will almost never resolve it. So, unless you just enjoy arguing, the best way to proceed is to remove yourself from the possibility of negative outcomes, and let the person go ahead and implement their strategy with the clear knowledge that they are the one bearing all the risk and they are the ones who will suffer from being wrong – not you.
“Think that shooting yourself in the foot will bring you almost orgasmic pleasure? Go ahead, pull the trigger – your foot, not mine!”
“You think the mushroom is delicious while I think it is poisonous? Go ahead, eat the mushroom.”
