Unexpected negative conversation outcome

Post Reply New Topic

I was discussing the monarchy with some people (as all Britons do at some point in the day), and someone asked why kings were ranked higher than queens.

I responded by saying "basically, the world was ruled by men until women started demanding rights". Now, I'm not asking about the validity of that statement, because I know it's not 100% correct. If you want to discuss this viewpoint, we can do so in another forum. The issue isn't even that some people reacted shocked, and one person told me " you need to stop talking, now".

Wanting to have a discussion and explain my standpoint (because from the history I've read, it seems that most societies have been patriarchal for thousands of years) I asked if they could explain why that statement was so bad, to which the response was repeated: "you need to stop talking". A sentiment echoed by the group. That's the issue.

I feel I have the edges of understanding, but can anyone shed light on what was so socially inappropriate about my statement? It is hard to say " enlighten me" without sounding sarcastic... But please, enlighten me.

Most likely, they thought it was a subject already done to death by a certain type of person. I think they identify your statement with a certain viewpoint, and will not listen to what you actually have to say.

I think what you were saying was at best an oversimplification, but I would have told you why I thought you were wrong.

I am often fascinated that people seem to think me unable to change my mind. I often make a generalized statement like that, and then totally change my mind during a conversation because someone else has made a really good point. But a lot of people are not able to, because they have emotional reasons for believing what they do, and then there is no changing their minds.

Edit: Wanted to add this: Also, they probably interpreted your request for enlightenment as aggressive. And they couldn't explain it

I think they thought you had a problem with women's rights because you used the word "demanding." It was probably a case of you being more blunt then they were used to and they misunderstood what you meant.

See, that's a better explanation than mine, just shows how clueless I am I never thought there was anything wrong with demamding what is yours

Essentially. Depending on the way you've worded your response, or the intonation of your voice, that statement could have come off as incredibly sexist.

I was thinking that, too. The word "demanding" may be the problem. I would say: "...basically, the world was ruled by men until women wanted to have the same rights as men have."

OTOH, some people are a bit clumsy, and pick the wrong words to say something. I tend to forgive them, and guess what they really meant. Also, because I can be clumsy from time to time as well. I am generally not blunt to people.

I suppose nuances of meaning can be lost in AS-NT conversations. I know it was an overgeneralisation, but I didn't expect such an extreme response. I usually find overgeneralisations a way to start discussions, but perhaps I shouldn't have tried with such a "hot button" topic.

Though I'm not saying I'm blameless in this interaction, it seems to be that they assume a set of opinions based on a single statement, i.e. sexism. I'd like to think I'm not sexist (and a previous standard corporate-wide bias test put me at "no noticeable bias" in any discrimination category, but who says that was a good test?). I wouldn't say demanding is a negative thing, but intonation matters... To demand justice vs to demand someone's attention, almost.

I just hope they thought I was accidentally sexist and not endemically sexist.

Underwater: an opinion reached by reason can be changed by reason and defended by reason, but an opinion not reached by reason cannot be changed or defended by reason. I too have had opinions changed by discussion, as I hope most people have. I think it has been said about scientific theorem that if new information is found which contradicts the theorem, then the theorem needs to change to accommodate this information, or a new theorem be devised. Unfortunately, emotions are not scientic theorems, and not everyone argues their thoerem with as much emotion as I do.

Hmk66: I'm guessing there were always women who wanted equality, but it wasn't until the 19th century (I think) until they started being heard by influential people and really fought for it. But again, I was oversimplifying, and simplicity often defies subtlety.

MisterSpock
I don't see a problem with your original statement because I understood your point. But anyways I don't think anyone is going to hold it against you. A lot of times these kind of incidents are forgotten by most people. But yeah you're right a lot of nuance is either missed or misinterpreted between AS and NT's.

You're also assuming that what you read was accurate. Sometimes historical accounts are corrected and something that was supposed for a long time turns out not to be true.

For example, 100 years ago, it was a "fact" that the size of your brain determined how smart you were, and further, that women and non-whites had smaller, simian-type brains. Criminals also had small monkey brains.

Go back a little farther and you'll find some facts called alchemy. Some history about dragons.

My point is that you can't believe everything you read. But if you want to do some more reading, go read about women's rights in Viking civilizations.

This is also how my mind works. The councillor I occasionally see is always exasperatingly insisting that life isn't just an equation. Perhaps that is what you're encountering here. I was interested to see the responses to explain this as I couldn't see anything wrong with your statement. Yes it was a broad generalisation, but I would assume you intended it to be in order to initiate discussion, not that you believed it to be true without exception.
That people responded with "you need to stop talking," makes no sense to me. If they disagreed, why not challenge you? You may both then actually have a worthwhile conversation where your beliefs are challenged or you learn something, or understand another perspective. This to me would seem like walking up to someone and saying "hello" and them responding with "how dare you!"
NT/AS disconnect? Who knows.