In the summer of 2016, Taylor Swift was one of the most publicly attacked women in the world.
The details are documented and widely known. What matters to this story is what he did next. Every instinct — every preacher’s instinct, every lawyer’s instinct, every human instinct when you’re publicly humiliated and you know the version of events being told about you isn’t true — fight back. Correct the record. Protect yourself. show them
Taylor Swift was completely silent.
No social media. No interviews. Any carefully worded statements made by representatives. No response to the attack, no acknowledgment of the narrative built around it, no evidence that he was even watching. For almost a year, he simply withdrew – not defeated, not hidden, but gone. Deliberately, completely, unapologetically gone.
And then he came back on his own terms, ushering in his next era with a snake and releasing an album called Reputation that sold more than four million copies in its first week.
Silence was not the absence of power.
It was energy in its most concentrated form.
I didn’t intentionally think about Taylor Swift the night I finally stopped arguing with her. I was standing in the bathroom — the only room in the flat where I could be alone — rehearsing the response I was going to give. I had proof. I had the receipt. I had, in my head, made the argument that he would have no choice but to finally, just admit once and for all what really happened.
I’ve done this before. many times It never worked.
And standing there, looking at myself in the mirror, I thought: What if logic is the problem?
Here’s what you’ll walk away with:
→ Why every argument you make gives him exactly what he needs to continue
→ What silence actually does to someone who feeds off your feedback
→ Three types of silence – and which ones actually work
→ What happened when I finally stopped — and what that silence brought back to me
I was an exceptional logician. That was the problem.
I want to say this clearly because I spent a long time being proud of the wrong things.
I was good at arguing. Specific, calm, evidence-based. I could reconstruct the conversation with someone who was mentally recording it — because I was, because somewhere early in the relationship I started logging things, building a mental case file against the possibility that I would one day have to prove to myself that what I thought actually happened.
I bring this case file to every dispute. I quoted it. I have established the timeline. I kept my voice level and my reasoning clear and I presented, repeatedly and with increasing sophistication, why what happened happened and why it was not acceptable.
Nothing has changed.
Not because I was wrong. Reason was not a matter of logic. Argument was never the point.
What I didn’t realize—what I only realized later, much later, sitting in the chair by the window on a Tuesday afternoon in my therapist’s office—was that all the logic I came up with was deposited into a system that ran entirely on my preoccupation. The content of what I said was almost irrelevant. The fact that I was saying it—that I was still there, still invested, still trying to convince her, still behaving like a person who needed her recognition to feel sane—was the asset. That was what kept the whole thing going.
I wasn’t arguing with him. I was feeding him.
I thought my arguments were weapons. They were rules. Each perfectly constructed sentence was proof that I was still there, still needed him to see me, still available to handle.
His argument does not need to win. He needs you to keep it.
This is something I had to understand before changing anything else.
The goal was not to convince me. Someone truly interested in resolution will engage with the evidence, admitting that is documentable, showing some movement over time even if the movement is slow. This is what the good faith argument looks like. People who actually want to solve something do.
What I was working on was different. Every time I scored, the goalposts moved. Every time I presented the evidence the subject changed. Every time I was calm, my calmness was labeled as coolness. Every time I showed emotion, my emotion was regurgitated as restlessness. There was no version of the argument that I could win because the argument was not structured to win. It was structured to continue.
Dr. Ramani Durvasula, whose research on narcissistic patterns in intimate relationships came long after I needed them, describes it as: JADE TRAP — justify, reason, defend, explain. Every time you JADE, you signal that her opinion of reality is worth the competition. His version of events is a serious contender for the truth. You have to admit what you know before you feel certain.
You don’t need to acknowledge him. You already know what you know. The argument is just keeping that knowledge at a distance, because as long as you’re arguing, you’re not acting on it yet.
Three kinds of silence – and the one that actually changes everything.
When Priya first asked me to stop getting involved, I heard it as advice to be passive. Absorbing quietly without responding loudly. To swallow what was happening and call it mercy.
That’s not what silence means here. It has three versions and only one of them works.
The first is wounded silence — the silence of one who has been hurt and is quiet enough to show it. This is not silence. It’s a response given without a word, and he reads it perfectly and responds the same way he responds to every response. It’s still busy. It still feeds the system.
The second is Strategic silence – The silence of someone who has decided not to respond in order to gain an advantage. It’s better, but it still puts him in the center. You are choosing silence because Him, which means he is still determining your behavior. He will feel it and wait for you, because waiting is something he is better than you.
The third is Apathetic silence — and this is one Taylor Swift who was hired in 2016 The silence of one who has truly redirected his attention That’s not biting his tongue. Who is not calculating his next move. Who has simply, truly, ceased to find reason worth living – because to him it is more important to have, to create something more valuable, a version of himself that he is more interested in than what he says about him.
This silence is not a trick. It is a destination. And it’s the only one he has no reaction to.
Wounded silence is still a response. Strategic silence still makes him the center. Apathetic silence is the only thing that really takes away his power – because it’s the only thing that isn’t about him.
What happened when I actually shut up. Let me tell you the part no one warns you about.
It got louder before it calmed down.
This is the part I wish someone had told me, so I’m telling you now. When you withdraw your engagement — when you stop arguing, stop explaining, stop performing the version of yourself that is still trying to understand — there will be an increase. A person who is receiving a steady supply of your feedback simply does not accept its removal. He will increase the behavior used to create a response. He will become louder, more provocative, more assertive, more confusing.
This increase is not proof that silence is wrong. Proof that it works.
What he’s doing, in increments, is searching for the input that’s used to reliably generate your engagement. He’s cycling through his collection looking for the version that still works. And when none of them do—when he finally realizes that the supply has truly been withdrawn and not just withheld—silence ensues.
Not his silence, necessarily. Motion itself is silence. To run a system running on your response is the specific, massive silence that follows when the response is finished.
I stood in the kitchen the night I finally figured it out — hands in cold water, not thinking about anything in particular — and realized that the argument I’d been making in the bathroom three weeks earlier had never been made. And nothing broke. The world was still standing. I was still standing.
And he was very, very cool.
The silence gave me back what I had forgotten I had lost.
Taylor Swift has returned from her year of silence with something different. Not hard, right. More located. More sure of who he was and what he was creating, in a way that had nothing to do with what anyone else was saying about him.
The silence returned him.
That gave me. Not victory. Not the satisfaction of winning. There was nothing about him.
The quiet discovery that I was still there—the version of us that existed before arguments, before case files, before I became the person who spent his evenings in the bathroom rehearsing sentences he’d never hear the way he meant them. He was still there. He was patiently waiting for me to stop being so loud about something that no longer deserves my voice.
You can’t silence him with a good argument.
You truly, completely, peacefully silence him by being more interested in your own life than his version of you.
This is rice. It was always the move.
The only question is how long you want to spend rehearsing in the bathroom before making it.
–
This post was Previously published at medium.com.
Love affair? We promise a better stay with your inbox.
Subscribe to get dating and relationship advice 3x weekly.
do you know We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there!
***
–
Photo credit: Stephen Mace at Unsplash
