I remind you how this went. I said “I bet you dollars to donuts this has something to do with the Adelicia v. South Street fight.” S-town Mike said, “I think you’d lose that bet because this doesn’t even have anything at all to do with midtown.” I prove that it does indeed have to do with midtown by using my mad reading skills and now S-town Mike is trying to prove that all this started before the Adelicia v. South Street fight.
So, you can see, there are no donuts coming for me.
I have noticed this in arguing, that there are marked differences in arguing styles. See, I feel like this argument had two parts. A. Whether this had to do with Adelicia v. South Street and then B. Whether it had anything to do with midtown at all. And I think it’s clear that Mike moved us from argument A. to argument B.
I clearly won argument B. It does indeed have to do with midtown.
But rather than concede, and bring me donuts (which is the important part), he’s now acting like we’re back to a.
Fine. You bring me donuts, I’ll give you a dollar. You keep your donuts, I’ll keep my dollar. The world is righted once again.
But I’m still pondering the exchange. Why is it that, when Tobia said in the first place that such an ordinance was stupid, the thrust of the conversation wasn’t, “No, here’s why it’s necessary,” but “No, here’s why it’s not stupid.” So, instead of being a discussion (which Mike now wants to get to) about actual noise levels and offending clubs and whether they’ve been responsive to people’s needs, it’s a discussion about what Austin is doing or Atlanta or what-have-you.
It’s not a discussion about actual problems in our community and how best to address them, but some lofty discussion about the proper role of government and moderation as a virtue and bringing ourselves in line with other communities.
I know I’ve pointed this out before, but a lot of times, when you’re trying to have a discussion with men, especially men who think other men are watching or participating, you have to go through this metaphorical dick-waving before you can get down to the meat of the issue. Everyone has to prove that they have the “right equipment” to be in the conversation and that the pecking order has been established.
This is not at all how I’ve been socialize–I assume as a white upper-working class midwestern woman–to converse. I’m supposed to be seeing everyone’s side and building consensus and helping the man feel like he’s won, even as I manipulate him to get my own way. If that doesn’t work, I go in the kitchen, reach consensus among the woman, and do what I damn well please.
But that kind of rhetorical strategy–find a way to seem to acquiesce while secretly maintaining that you were right and, if no way to seem to acquiesce can be found, withdraw from the conversation–works very poorly on blogs. Well, in public life in general.
How can women who are trained to go along with what the men say or leave the room if they can’t, have any kinds of effective public discussion?
We joke, my friends and I, that it would be awesome to carry a dildo around in your purse, so that when it’s dick-waving time, you can reach down, pull yours out, set it on the table and be heard and treated as a voice with the authority to speak.
Hmm, we’ve wandered far afield of donuts, but it’s always interesting how we get so far, you know?
Tiny Cat Pants 
Yawn.
I suppose if you stood the dildo on the table, it would be a good place to stack your donuts.
It might also curb donut theft.
A doctorate is a lovely dick to wave around, but it would have saved me a lot of time and money to just buy a dildo.
Mack, it is a brave man who opens his mouth when we girls are waving our dicks around.
Freaky Weasel, exactly.
Bridgett, true enough, but you can’t write a book with a dildo.
As I pointed out in an update on Enclave last night, the Council’s own analysis indicates that Downtown residents started looking into the noise problems 2 years ago before ground was ever broken in Midtown for the Adelicia. You demonstrate no evidence beyond the wording of the bill itself that Midtown residents prompted this, including an explanation of why, if they did, is their council member not a sponsor of this bill. The task force behind the bill includes both Downtown residents and merchants.
This argument may have little to do with actual problems in the community not because it is in any way lofty, but because of your assumptions about your opponents: that they are Victorian, that they are dick-waving, that they are just out to win an argument and banish women from the room, that they are trampling on someone’s rights, that they might prefer to sit around listening to quiet music while you show some ankle, etc. etc. etc.
The argument has little to do with actual problems because you seemed to have turned it into your own personal diversion and mind game rather than actually seeking out what the task force on this problem has done. As for the donuts, I just assumed that the wager was a joke like your ostensibly obtuse reference to “urban pioneers.”
As I also pointed out in last night’s update: all kinds of Metro decisions are partly based on peer comparisons with places like Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc. Why should local policy on music get special exceptions? The least you could do is link my update here so that your voice isn’t the only channel of mine.
Using a dildo is not cheating. The men you see waving their dicks with the most vigor and least sense of propriety are already waving dildos, to hide the fact that they are under-endowed.
And speaking of…Mike, if I wanted to read you, your blog is on the blogroll.
Mike, I see now that engaging you is about as productive as using a beehive as a piñata. Surely there’s sweet stuff inside, but it’s so painful to get to. And yet, I soldier on because I cannot help but be curious about where this ends.
So, let’s clarify. I don’t have “opponents” in this matter. I’m not calling my councilmember or your council member or theirs. I think it’s stupid to move into a neighborhood where it is clear, if you just look out your car window when you are driving to the open house, there are music venues only to then complain about the noise.
But if that floats your boat, go for it. I’m not going to try to stop you. I’m also not going to stop thinking that it’s stupid.
You’re the one who decided that I was somehow in league with Tobia and the libertarians in some effort to stop this. I’m not trying to stop it. Again, I just think it’s stupid.
Also, you’re the one who’s blowing this up into something larger, into me v. all downtown residents (of whom you’re not even one) with your use of the term “they” in your comment above.
I am joking. I think this is funny and stupid. You’re the one who’s fighting it out like it’s the Second Battle of Bull Run, accusing me of all kinds of unfair rhetorical practices, when you’re bringing up rape and libertarianism and pitbulls and whatever else kitchen-sink-wise you can come up with.
If you can’t see how weirdly funny this whole thing is, I just can’t help you.
As for not linking to you, I prefer to assume my readers aren’t idiots. As Bridgett points out, you’re on the blogroll (right there to your right as you read this comment) and anyone who gives two shits about this little disagreement read your post the last time I linked to it.
Plus, my god, if you really felt your voice wasn’t being fairly heard, why didn’t you bother to post a link to your post in the comments?
I know I’ve pointed this out before, but a lot of times, when you’re trying to have a discussion with men, especially men who think other men are watching or participating, you have to go through this metaphorical dick-waving before you can get down to the meat of the issue. Everyone has to prove that they have the “right equipment” to be in the conversation and that the pecking order has been established.
To me this is one of the weirdest things about blogland — how much time and effort guys spend on exactly this. Since I can think of several million more fun or enlightening ways to spend my time, it mystifies me that they do this.