I am a well-read woman who feels free to express my opinions, though I am too often lazy about tracking down and citing the supportive references from which my opinions derive.

So, it is neither a surprise nor a cause for complaint when my opinions or ideas are criticized by other TPM posters. That’s perfectly fair. If my opinions appear to be ill-informed;  if they are, in fact, illogical inferences about the topic at hand;  or even if l prove to be inept at following the bouncing ball of a discussion as it develops, then my unsubstantiated contributions and/or flawed responses have earned criticism. No problem at all. Tell me in what way I erred. Because I almost always learn something important from a critic I didn’t know before.

However. There is a huge difference between criticizing an opinion.… and criticizing, by pejoratively characterizing, the person who made it. This second approach is a waste of time and a drain of energy, as it ignores the topic, bypassing what could be an exchange of information in favor of intentionally damaging the recipient; it is a cheap shot that invites him (or her) to think less of himself (or herself) by accepting that he (or she) is fundamentally flawed, somehow less than.

Teaching people the distinction between the two approaches to criticism is what child psychologist, Hiam Ginott, has effectively made his life’s work. He is best known for two quotes. The first is a caution to parents, in which he urges them to “criticize the behavior, but not the child;” the second is a mantra for teachers, in which he advises them to be ever-mindful that “A slow student is not cured by sarcasm. Mental processes are not mended by mockery. Ridicule breeds hate and invites vengeance.”

So what am I on about? I raise this issue of varying approaches to criticism because, in the past few weeks, I have been the recipient of not one, but three intensely personal, intentionally pejorative characterizations. The first I dismissed as petulant crankiness. The second actually made me laugh. But the third got my undivided attention. Because it was not only the harshest of the three, but was also said about me, in the third person, to another TPM person, on a thread in which I had not participated. In fact, if I had not been looking through archived threads for a specific quote I had been told I might find there, I would never have seen it, never been aware that I had been so publicly pilloried, never been able to fathom why the attitudes of some people  towards me might change, and never been aware of the actual damage that might be headed my way in my professional life.  

So I thought that I might use that one – ok, the one that actually hurt me -- to illustrate Ginott’s theory.

If I am apply Ginott’s principles to reply to the TPM poster who so thoughtlessly, but ever so casually, impugned me, I might -- after taking a deep breath and adopting a conversational tone --  say, in my native southerner’s version of a Ginnot way:

“Do feel free to criticize my opinions, poster ID, but -- do not, ever again, even think about calling me a “she-stud.” Because, if you do, Darlin’, there will be consequences for you, as well as for me.  Because, poster ID, for starters, that is a characterization that is intended to humiliate those to whom it applies, which they do not deserve, because I am told, and I accept, that it’s all about DNA, Darlin’, not about “sexual preferences.” But seein’ as you applied it to me, to whom it does not apply (there, by god, is a last innings irony) – and seein’ as you did so even though you have never talked to me, nor ever laid eyes on me (not even in a photograph)…. and seein’ as this characterization, nonetheless, could lead to negative repercussions in my professional life -- because there’s another TPM aficionado here at the school where I teach….Well.  Unless you issue a retraction, and an apology to me here, and in the venue in which you originally said it, I may have to hunt you down, Bébé, and sue you for slander.”

The poster, like Ginott’s child, has, according to Ginott’s tenets, thereby been informed of the behavioral error he made, and advised of the consequences that may pertain if he does it again. And I have lived by Ginott’s rules, as I have only addressed the poster’s behavior and advised him of the likely consequences of his actions; I have not characterized him, as a person, in any negative way.

Whereas, if I reply incorrectly, ignoring Dr. Ginott’s advice, and I attack the character of the poster and not his specific behavior, then I might well say, still in authentic southern voice:

“You pencil-dick, retard bastard. Are you, poster ID, so afraid of strong-minded women, so impotent in the face of character-based power like your Mamma’s, that you have to get it up, by attempting to get one up, by resortin’ to brutal and completely false sexual slurs? Think again, mon ami. See you in court. And don’t forget  to  bring your checkbook and the deed to your house. ‘Cause we’re gonna ‘laisser les bons temps rouler.’ ”

Do y’all see the difference? As Dr. Ginott says, so eloquently that I repeat: “A slow student is not cured by sarcasm. Mental processes are not mended by mockery. Ridicule breeds hate and invites vengeance.”