Weekly Trinity journal., 1870-04-16

Arguing with Women.

men will not argue with women because they
despise them Able men do not despise cutiva-
| ted and intelligent women, or think them inca
pable of throwing new light upon any subject
that may be under discussion. On the contrary,
such men know very we'll that, as regards the
contribution of new and really valuable matter
to any discussion, the general run of men and
women in good society are pretty much on a
par. The number of men who, in "a discussion
on any subject, can bring really fresh stores of
ready and accurate knowledge to bear. are al
ways very few. Men like LORD Macaulay or Sir
W. Hamilton are not more plentiful in society
that women like Miss Martineau. Tried by the
standard of sound knowledge the talk of an
average man is just as ignorant aud nonsensical
as the talk OF an average woman. And tried by
the standard o. imagination-that is, of the
power of making new or unexpected cOmbna-
tions and comparisons-th talk of women is
generally better, within certain limits, that that
OF men, In fact also in the art of leading and
drawing out discussion, women are, on the
whole, far superior to men. So that it is GER
tany not from feeling of contempt that the
cultv0ted man declines to argue with the cult
waited women.
A more plausible, but still unsatisfactory,
theory is that men do not argue with women
because women cannot argue, inasmuch as they
are very inconsequential and illogical. This
theory is not worth much as is sometimes
supposed. No doubt, women generally are il
| logical The number OF women whose training
and reading have been such as to enable them
! to pursue, for five minutes, Il sound course of
argument, is very small. But how great is the
number of men who have that capacity? Let
any man moving in a cultivated circle of general
society-or even, perhaps, in the peculiar circles
of Oxford or Cambridge-think over the list of
his friends and acquaintances, both men and
women. Is it possible that his women friends
could be any more tiresome in argument than he
\ finds hia m friends N h..2 ha p,.n
| plague him with undistributed mddes, begging
the question, ambiguous terms, and faacies in
every mood of the four fgureS2 Don't they, in
| arguing on any matter on which they are keeny
interested, put sentiment and feeling in place of
Just intereuce2 The number of meR who will
make glarng bluuders in argument may perhaps
be less than that of women who will do so but
their superiority to women is, after ALL nol much
greater than that of Cornelia to the rest of her
sex
Whose she did her eclipse
Could argue in IA hne eclipse
The generality of women may perhaps be n little
inferior to the generality of men in conscious
analysis of the processes of thought but it is
not this analysis which comes principally into
play in the course of ordinary social argument.
Such an argument generally consists, in the
main, of the production by one side Of the CON
trary instances against the universal propositions
hazarded by the other sde-a struggle in which
tthul VIII anu u StIN lSfRult tucinOll lOI utlhlls
are much more valuable than any power of
analysing the laws OF thought.
Nor is it satisfactory to say that men do not
argue with women because women argue only
for victory, and not for truth Women are, in
this respect, neither much better nor much worse
than men. Very few people, either men or
women, argue with pure desire to elucdate
the truth, and ip a spirit of indifference to their
own personal success because, in the first
place, an argument is not process whereby
ignorant people can usually become better in
formed and even If it were, in the second place,
almost all people are carried away in the heat OF
argument to forget everything but the personal
sense Of competition, aud the desire of victory
which that competition exctes. And it is by
the light of tins consideration that see the
true reason why men decline to argue with
women. All argument Is, in fact, except In the
case off few singuarly well-trained dispositions,
Il personal strife, or combat. 1t Is like game
of chess between two moderate players, in which
the love of science is almost always swallowed
up by the desire to win. 1t is in fact duel.
And any one who remembers that to all dueling
1t is essential that the weapons and the laws OF
the combat be equal to both combatants, will
see at once why men cannot argue with women.
A man arguing with a woman is at a fatal dsad-
vantage. Neither the weapons nor the laws of
combat are equal. He fights with blunted
sword, or blunderbuss she with double
edged raper, or an "arm of percison." He
must stand, but may not deliver the fire Of
personalities. He must not outstep certain
bounds, whereas her range is unlimited. He is
strictly forbidden to deliver certain effective
thrusts, or shocks" as she calls them lie
must not I" shock her delicacy "a very favorte
restriction with rather underbred women, and
with American ladies. He must not 4" shake
her faith "a restriction under which most
women require an argument upon any Of the
most deeply interesting problems OF the day to
be conducted And she is to be the umpire, or
arbiter, whether he breaks any of these restrc-
tons In short, argument even with an able
woman, is game the law of which is
" Heads, you win tails, lose "a game at
which no sensible man cares TO play. y.-Satarddy
RevieW.
ELEGANCE DOES NOT MAKE HoME.-Theodore
Parker says