Soft control and the art of female aggression

The art of subtle power plays

I’ve had exchanges both online and in person that felt off. It took me a while to pinpoint why because on the surface everything seemed polite. A warm smile. A pleasant tone.

But smiles can be weapons used to distract, disarm, and deceive those who assume they always signal sincerity.

Once I stopped berating myself for doubting the smiling relationship assassin, I saw it clearly: the mismatch between her words and her nonverbal cues.

Words that demand and assert control, delivered with a smile and a calm voice. A form of hidden aggression. You feel it before you can name it.

Before I go on, this isn’t some anti-feminist, woman-bashing take. Some men use these same covert tactics, pulling the same moves to dominate without appearing threatening.

I was reminded of this recently during an exchange on LinkedIn.

My post that inspired the exchange:

Behold the exchange:

Her: Please don’t use AI images. X

Me: [Name] please tell someone else what to do with their posts, or contribute to pay for artists and stock images I can use instead, and feel free to do what you want with yours.

Her: [Name] Noted. Supporting actual artists is something I value, especially in representation and equity for female photographers. Wishing you well with your work. If you’re ever interested in collaborating with artists, I’d be happy to share connections.

Me: [Name], I see that the AI image wasn’t really the issue - it was a more comfortable way to express discomfort with my post. Conversations about how women treat each other at work can be confronting, especially when they challenge the narratives we prefer.

You framed this as a matter of equity and representation, but that’s selective advocacy. Women are also coders, engineers, and researchers who contribute to AI development. If the goal is to support women’s work, that should include them too.

You’re free to support artists, just as I’m free to present my work as I choose. If AI images distract from the message, that says more about what’s being avoided than what’s being discussed.

Wishing you well.

Her: [Name] Take it how you wish to, if it helps.

Some of you might be thinking this superficially civil exchange isn’t worth a post or that I’m just looking for something to kvetch about. Without social and visual cues, it’s easier to notice when a comment feels off.

I’m unpacking this exchange, dear reader, because it happens all over Substack - people get bothered by a message, photo, meme, or a decontextualised sentence. Instead of engaging critically, the person on the receiving end either freezes or submits to the commenter’s assumed authority.

The issue I’m highlighting is the use of soft control, a female relational aggression strategy, to assert dominance when they feel discomfort with content. Soft control, virtue signalling, and passive dominance featured in the comments are particularly insidious because they operate under the guise of politeness, fairness, or “just expressing a personal value”. It’s not the overt aggression people recognise easily, like yelling or obvious bullying. Instead, it’s a socially acceptable, indirect form of control that’s hard to call out without being accused of overreacting.

It’s not about the AI image

Let’s unpack her motivation to comment as she did based on an analysis of her word choice expressing her mental models:

Control and testing boundaries: Telling me not to use AI images was an attempt at influencing my content. This is a form of soft control even if it was a conscious or unconscious action. By pushing me, she’s testing whether I comply or push back.

I could have ignored or deleted it. I chose to respond because 1) my ego wanted to have a go because I saw the power play 2) I wanted to model to bystanders that pushing back is an option while also deterring others from piling on.

Testing my response: My direct response drew a line as I refused to be told what to do. Her follow up was polite and composed, acknowledging my stance while still restating her values. She was either recalibrating her approach or saving face after realising she wasn’t going to dictate my choices.

Indirect discomfort with the content of my post: The topic of my post - women hurting women in the workplace - is uncomfortable, especially for those invested in narratives of solidarity. She might not have wanted to directly challenge the substance of my post, so she fixated on something peripheral (the use of an AI image) as a way to express disapproval or create distance.

Moral positioning and values signalling: She then publicly stated that she values supporting artists, particularly female photographers and that she stands for commitment to equity and representation. By commenting on my post with a position unrelated to the message, rather than simply scrolling past, she was making sure her stance was seen.

Her response showed me that she was doubling down on her mental model about women’s solidarity and empowerment that was challenged by the content of my original post. By implying “not all women…”, she was minimising the fact that women do hurt other women.

She also implied that I’m one of those women because I’m using AI instead of being a dutiful and obedient women equity advocate who amplifies female photographers, making me a traitor to my sex. She got to play Saviour to her victimised mental model and the archetype of sacred woman it represents, to shield it from me, the Persecutor.

Soft power play disguised as an offer: Ending with an offer to share artist connections could be a way of reframing the exchange to maintain a position of authority. Instead of conceding, she shifted into a role where she could still provide value, subtly positioning herself as a gatekeeper to and judge of the right way of doing things.

My response intended to expose the real underlying issue (her discomfort), to redirect the discourse back to the original post’s message, and to end the interaction as neutrally as possible. I wanted to come across as unbothered, unmoved, and uninterested in further discussion. I also mirrored her phrasing back to her to let her know that her attempt to guilt me through soft control didn’t work.

Overall, her response is a deflection. She avoids accountability while subtly framing herself as the reasonable one. Her passive “take it how you wish to, it if helps” keeps her from engaging further while implying that my response was personal rather than factual.

The psychology behind soft control

Soft control tactics are used to establish dominance without appearing dominant. They create an imbalance of power by subtly undermining, reframing, or redirecting the conversation to benefit the person using them. These tactics can include:

• Framing disagreement as a personal shortcoming: ie. “If it helps you to see it that way…”

• Invoking moral superiority to position themselves as the ethical one: “I value equity and representation” as a way of implying and assuming you don’t.

• Feigning neutrality or benevolence to mask the power play: “If you ever want to collaborate, I know artists…”. This is a disguised attempt to pull you into their preferred way of doing things.

• Dismissal disguised as grace: “Take it how you wish to, if it helps” after their attempt to influence fails.

These tactics work because they trigger self-doubt in the target (it did), making them feel like pushing back would be petty, defensive, or mean-spirited. That’s why people often second guess themselves when they sense these power moves; the control is hidden in the social script of politeness.

Female competition and the role of soft control

Women’s social hierarchies tend to rely more on indirect aggression than physical confrontation or overt domination (which are more common in male hierarchies). Since women are often socialised to maintain relationships and appear cooperative, competition for status, influence, or resources has to be managed covertly.

This leads to relational aggression, where control and dominance are exerted through:

Exclusion and social policing - deciding who is morally acceptable and who isn’t.

Subtle status games - positioning oneself as an ethical authority without outright attacking.

Language manipulation - using concern or values to control the conversation.

Feigning victimhood - turning the response to soft control into an attack to gain social support.

What makes these tactics so frustrating is that if you don’t notice them, you can end up subtly controlled. But if you do notice them and push back, the person using them will claim you are overreacting, being aggressive, or even being misogynistic. This is part of the trap: they appear non-threatening while still exerting force.

The danger of these tactics is how they can shape discourse, decision-making, and influence. When people use soft control successfully, they subtly dictate who gets to have a voice, what is acceptable to say, and who is seen as reasonable or unreasonable.

We have witnessed and many have experienced the effect of allowing soft control to go unchallenged. People hesitate to voice dissent for fear of being shamed, shunned, and framed as morally inferior. Those who do push back can be made to feel like there is something wrong with them or extreme. Whereas, those who are have more social power can use these tactics to gain control while maintaining their façade of openness.

What you can do (and what I did)

1. Name it: If you feel something is off, it probably is. Soft control thrives on subtlety. Naming it weakens it.

2. Don’t play the game: People who use these tactics expect you to argue within their frame. Instead, refuse the premise (ie. “If AI images distract from the message, that says more about what’s being avoided than what’s being discussed.”).

3. Stay unmoved and unbothered: The goal of soft control is to get a reaction that affirms their authority. Deny them your energy!

Soft control is only an issue if you don’t see it. Once you can see it, you can avoid the trap whenever it sneaks its way into your comment section.

How do you deal with soft control tactics?

Please share this if you think it will help your fellow Substackers manage the covert, softer side of control tactics.

Thanks for reading, subscribing, sharing, and supporting my work!

Nathalie

---

Hack narcissism and support my work

I believe that a common threat to our individual and collective thriving is an addiction to power and control. This addiction fuels and is fuelled by greed - the desire to accumulate and control resources in social, information (and attention), economic, ecological, geographical and political systems.

While activists focus on fighting macro issues, I believe that activism also needs to focus on the micro issues - the narcissistic traits that pollute relationships between you and I, and between each other, without contributing to existing injustice. It’s not as exciting as fighting the Big Baddies yet hacking, resisting and overriding our tendencies to control others that also manifest as our macro issues is my full-time job.

I’m dedicated to helping people understand all the ways narcissistic traits infiltrate and taint our interpersonal, professional, organisational and political relationships, and provide strategies for narcissism hackers to fight back and find peace.

Here’s how you can help.

• Order my book: The Little Book of Assertiveness: Speak up with confidence

• Support my work:

  • through a Substack subscription

  • by sharing my work with your loved ones and networks

  • by citing my work in your presentations and posts

  • by inviting me to speak, deliver training or consult for your organisation