From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Used threads
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:10:34 GMT

In article <711665909snx@walter.UUCP> fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
>drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>>>Actually, I was kinda hoping we might find a new one.....
>>
>>Would be nice but like the rest of you I seem to be fresh out of ideas,
>>give me the afternoon, maybe I'll think of something.......
>
>Hows about arguing about : arguing.
>
>Why argue ?

Seems like a good thread. I may not be a good person to present a "typical"
(whatever that is) female view of arguing because as a scientist "argument"
holds a somewhat different meaning for me than it does for many people. By
that I mean that I rarely make or take argument personally. It is a
technique for focusing on the issue and for getting at the essential
"truth" of a problem. In that sense it is a useful tool.

>
>Do you have to raise your voice and get emotional to get the other person
>to take you seriously ?
>
These are last resort tactics and yes sometimes they are useful tactics.
Actually they are tactics that I rarely use with or on friends or collegues
but where I do use them is in service/sales/stranger situations where
something has to be done quickly to make ones point and no other lines of
communication have been established. 

I'll give two examples: I "appear" angry in situations where I feel like
I'm being jerked around by someone trying to sell me something in a
coersive way or by someone who has provided a service that is substandard
and is trying to get me to just accept it. Sometimes I think these things
happen more to women than to men, especially in situations that are "men"
things like cars and plumbing. It is amazing how quickly a male salesperson
changes his attitude when a 5'2" female comes on like a 6' male. Never
works on women by the way.

This second situation just occured and it took me by surprise I must admit.
I was boarding a plane and just getting my luggage in the overhead. I'm
wearing jeans and a T-shirt, very relaxed. This guy (with his
buddies, all in suits/briefcases) walks up close behind me and says "excuse
me dear" (sounded like he thought he was talking to his secretary). Usually
I just think jerk and pass it off but somehow this just made me see red. I
turned toward him and in a rather loud voice said "Don't you call me dear,
what a perfectly assinine thing to say". He looked like he was going to
faint.

>Does it serve a constructive purpose ? (Can it ?)

Well when I'm really angry, rather than just miffed or using anger to get
what I want, I almost never raise my voice or get emotional. I get very
soft spoken, very precise and actually my debating style gets even better.
My boss once made the comment about me and another lab member, when we were
arguing about the meaning of the results of an experiment, that it was like
watching someone with a stilleto fighting someone with a broadsword. 

I guess for me real anger is rare in an argument (I get angry at injustice
for example but not in an arguement). I'm too busy trying to figure out the
essence of what's going on in the argument to get really angry - analytical
rather than emotional - I reserve emotion for more pleasant things.
>
>Can you keep yourself from verbally attacking the other person's
>intelligence/character/etc. when you are arguing with them ?
>
Sure, I'll say some action is dumb but rarely will I say that the person is
dumb. I believe in fighting fair - for example you don't bring in every
slight and hurt that the other person has done you in order to "win", you
stick to the point of the argument, everything else is irrelevant. I hate
it when someone brings in a lot of nonsense which simply clouds the issue
and prevents arriving at some mutually satisfactory solution.  

So okay, is this a new thread or not?

Max
Newsgroups: soc.singles