In thinking about the nature of social interactions while it’s possible to control some of the more overt aspects of it I have to think some of the nature of microaggression behavior is in simply embedded in the different roles we inhabit and how we “present” ourselves in social interactions. If I am wearing an expensive suit sitting behind a desk talking to a casually dressed man looking to borrow money from me or the entity I represent, I’m likely to be perceived as somewhat microaggressive by him before I even open my mouth.
People can certainly change overt obnoxiousness, but I’m not sure taking moral ownership of the consequences every subtle behavior and impression you throw off in being a day to day human being is even possible or practical.
so at what point will be not be allowed to do anything around other people because they might perceive it as a “microagression?”
I don’t see how those are “microaggressions,” most of them are out-and-out sexist behavior, and the last one has piles of law and workplace policy against it.
I don’t know anyone who would define “microaggression” so broadly that it would include something like this.
Now, if you’re taking the train alongside this casually dressed man (khakis and t-shirt) and he overhears you talking on your cell phone, telling someone that “a bum dressed in khakis and a t-shirt came into your office today, asking to borrow money”, this might be a microaggressive comment, from his perspective.
If the guy walks into your office to borrow money and you ask him if he has enough money to pay back the loan (a question both of you know you wouldn’t have to ask if he were better dressed), then this might be microaggressive.
“Microaggression” is in the eye of the person who feels the hurt, but no one is arguing that every little suboptimal reality is a microaggression. That would be silly.
My dad was a real estate agent. At one point in his career, he bought himself a fancy Porsche 911. A hot item at the time. He soon got rid of it though. Because it didn’t take him long to figure out that his fancy car was intimidating his would be buyers.
Differences in perspective I guess. If I was a banker and changed the old school term “bum” to the more modern “homeless person” and told a co-worker that “a homeless person was looking for a loan today” would that be micro aggressive? I can see almost any banker of any race, creed or color relating that story at lunch to his co-workers.
Re your second example in many service businesses (I’m in commercial real estate sales) you are on commission so you only get paid if a deal is possible, your time is all you have to sell and if you have limited time you have to gauge fairly quickly if a prospect is going to able to buy. It may be microaggressive to interact with people differently based on dress and other cues as to financial capability, but to do otherwise would be foolish.
If a person “presents” social cues like a ratty car, bad clothes, uneducated speech, clueless about financing etc. that normally correlate with not being able to afford the spaces they are interested in leasing or buying I’m not going to starting dumping time into dealing with them until I’ve qualified them and determined they can perform.
Sure, you can have casually or even poorly dressed gazillionaires in old cars, but the minute they open their mouth you can tell they know the lay of the land. On the flip side you can have people who have nice cars and clothes but limited resources. However, 90% + of the time a person’s capability IS accurately represented by their social cues. If Mr. or Ms. ratty car, bad clothes, uneducated speech, clueless about financing is going to feel microagressed because I am quizzing them about financial capability before spending hours on research or touring properties my reaction is going to be ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
the problem is that we all tend to magnify the things which happen to us, and we need a reason to blame someone any time it’s something bad. It can’t just be that someone was momentarily thoughtless, they must have been out to hurt me.
The problem is that some classes of people get these assumptions more than others for no reason other than some characteristic like sex or race. The problem with a lot of microaggressions is that you can’t really “prove” it had anything to do with their sex or race for a given encounter, but taken as a whole it happens to that person a lot more often than someone with different characteristics.
An example is insinuating a woman is bad at math. She may have made a mistake that made her seem bad at math, maybe the person in question just says that to everyone, etc etc, but in general women get that assumption far more than men, and will get accused of it for smaller mistakes and less reason. If you’re someone who gets those comments less often, or has a lot of self confidence it’s very easy to say they should laugh it off, but when people make the comment over and over it can be very easy to internalize some harmful messages.
Some people get really overzealous about eliminating all microaggressions and confronting their use directly, I view their existence more as a litmus test for stereotypes. Often they’re more of a symptom of deeper societal problems rather than a cause. The issue of microaggressions has more to do with patterns of comments more than any specific one comment, and that’s the point of the general theory of microaggressions: that they’re tiny comments that are on their own insignificant, but taken together can wear people down.
For your example, a black person who is “dressed down” is going to get an assumption of clueless or poverty more often than a white person. It’s not necessarily wrong to screen people who are wasting your time, and looks can be a marker of worthwhile clientele, but some people are going to get the same negative assumptions more often and for less reason than others. That’s where the problem lies.
Well, if you flat out state “you’re bad at math”, yes, but it can be a bit insidious. “It’s okay, you don’t have to entirely understand this, it’s a bit complicated.” “I hope this isn’t too difficult.” “Tell me if I lose you.”
Those all are phrases I’ve noticed are common in math education, but via my informal observations, they’re used much more often with women. They’re not really straightforward sexism, and they even come from a well meaning place of trying to help the person feel comfortable. But they also kind of subtly reinforce the notion that it may be more difficult for them to comprehend mathematics. Importantly, most people don’t notice they’re doing it, and women tend to have the same bias towards doing this as men.
This is why I find crusading against all microaggressions a bit silly, by the way. Those are very useful phrases for making your class feel comfortable with difficult material. I’m merely pointing out that just by the frequency of their use with different sexes they reinforce a perception “math is harder for women”. Like I said, a symptom more than a cause.
(Though I’d like to reiterate that this specific example is a personal observation, I don’t have a statistically valid sample tallying these things)
Then the solution is to consciously use it more evenly. Pay attention to whether you say it more to women, and, if you do, consciously use it less for them. Make a point of using it more with men.
Microaggressions are all about how you treat people differently.
No, I think microaggressions are about people being treated differently. I think these conversations get derailed because people assume that the relevant issue, the interesting part, the bit that matters is whether or not the privileged person is a bad person, if they can be “blamed”, if they should change their ways. It’s based on the assumption that the privileged person is the main character, I think, and that their status as “good” or “bad” is what matters.
This focus really keeps us from being able to discuss the experience of micro-aggressions and how they impact people who experience them. Instead we get bogged down “Woah! Not my fault”!
If you’re saying it in an insulting way and the coworker (unbeknownst to you) is homeless, then yes, it could be microaggressive. If you are saying it in a neutral way and the coworker has no reason to take offense, then no.
What is wrong with asking everyone, regardless of dress, to declare income?
Everyone has their reasons for being rude and presumptive. Everyone’s got a rationalization for their own shitty behavior. I’m sure the person who assumes the Latina employee is the secretary thinks they are just being efficient with their “limited time” by asking to see the manager. But how does it waste anyone’s time to ask the employee if she might be able to help before assuming anything? Is saving a couple of seconds worth more than someone else’s feelings?
Do you deny that those cues are perceived differently according to who is doing the perceiving and who is displaying the cues? Do you think a white guy who is dressed as a ruggamuffin is judged the same as a black guy who is dressed the same way?
Your throw-away “shrug” is cute. It illustrates perfectly why you kneejerk at the term “microaggression”. Of course the term is silly to you because you’ve never experienced it. You’re someone who feels that avoiding stigma and discrimination is as simple as speaking correct grammar and dressing well. How would you understand?
[QUOTE=astro;18912399. If I am wearing an expensive suit sitting behind a desk talking to a casually dressed man looking to borrow money from me or the entity I represent, I’m likely to be perceived as somewhat microaggressive by him before I even open my mouth. [/QUOTE]
No. That is an absurdly HORRIBLE example of “microaggression”. I reject the notion that someone should have to dress like a slob to avoid anyone else feeling “uncomfortable” because they can’t afford to shop at Hugo Boss.
Personally, I think microaggressions are just confirmation bias for social activists.
Now they can justify reading racism into every little phrase. They can make an accusation of racism into something for which there is absolutely no defense, because they can argue that the racism is unconscious and unintentional.
In fact, you’ll even notice from the Wikipedia article that “denial of sexism” is itself a microaggression. That’s right. Heads they win, tails I lose. Oops, I said tail. Guess I really let the cat out of the bag with that one. Oops, now I said cat, which we all know is a synonym for… :smack:
Aren’t you sort of doing the same thing though? You’re taking a hypothetical persons belief in microaggression theory as subconscious application of deeply rooted character flaws? You believe your assertion is correct and their self assessment is wrong?
Microaggression is very real, I deal with it just about every single day as a person who uses a wheelchair. It’s extremely frustrating too, because the things that are directed at you aren’t intended to hurt, offend or anger, so to them you have no right to feel those emotions when the person does whatever it is that provokes it. Which is ironic, in a way, because the fact that they did/said such hurtful/offensive things without even intending to, is in big part what makes it so offensive.