Political correctness and hypersensitivity are real things that are bad, but society is not at the point yet where things are so fair we can just discount them.
I don’t know about him but that is what I am saying. She is a archaeologist, not a psychologist that specializes in inter-gender dynamics. They are construction workers. They both have distinct and important roles. It sounds like they were trying to be nice and helpful but they aren’t psychic and they have different norms than she does even when they are trying to be on their best behavior. Maybe the last archaeologist that they worked with bitched them out for giving her a tool that was obviously too unwieldy for her to use well. Who would be the aggressor in that case?
I wouldn’t say the same thing if the story was that they relentlessly cat-called her or made fun of her fancy degrees. Those would be examples of actual aggression. This is just one example of miscommunication that can occur when different social classes or subcultures come into close contact with one another and there is no way to wish that away.
I feel really badly for anyone that takes these ‘micro-aggressions’ seriously and personally. It greatly limits the types of people they can interact with and will practically prohibit international travel even for 1st world countries like Italy and France. You can try to develop your own personal safe zone if you want but it will be small by every definition of the word.
So, you think the reason people have this sort of reaction:
… is because we’re using the wrong name for it? And if we could find just the right name, they’d figure out why that stuff is a problem?
Yes in all seriousness. I have made that point many times and even been quoted favorably on a popular feminist blog out of the blue with the acknowledgment that it may be a valid argument. I don’t want to give The Far Left any useful advice but I will share it with anyone including them.
Names are the public facing summarization of an idea especially for newly introduced terms like ‘micro-aggression’ and it is extremely important for them to be accurate at face value for them to be taken seriously by the general public. This is just Marketing and Psychology 101 yet social activist movements consistently miss the mark that it discredits their whole idea even if there is a grain of truth in there somewhere.
We have already learned in this thread that even supporters of the basic idea of ‘micro-aggression’ don’t believe that there is true aggressive intent behind most of the behaviors. That is serious problem with this term or any academic term for that matter. Posters in this thread have already given much better examples of more accurate terms. I don’t see what the issue is with giving newly invented terms accurately self-defining names but apparently the people that picked this term are either oblivious to the way the English language works and is interpreted by the general public or they were trying to be deliberately provocative to induce controversy (I believe it is mostly the latter but it still backfired).
So, you think it’s helpful and appropriate and not something to be bothered by that she is being treated every day, at her job, as if she is not capable of doing her actual job? Here, let me make sure the lady doesn’t crash her car. Let me make sure the trained archaeologist doesn’t try to use a shovel that’s too much for her. Aw, I’ll be helpful and take her kit away from her because obviously it’s too heavy for her. How would one of those strong, helpful men react if someone came up to him and took his heavy tools and concrete bags or whatever from him because they look too heavy for him?
Yes, they both have distinct and important roles, but it sounds like the construction workers don’t understand that, or don’t believe she is competent to actually fill her role. Day after day of that kind of “help,” in a professional setting no less, would be quite wearing, even if you aren’t trying to take it seriously or personally.
“Thanks, I got it, bro.” I wouldn’t go home that night still resentful. Even if people did this every day.
- She is a trained professional. Woman or not, I would think it’d be “natural” to assume she knows what tools she needs.
- And to assume that she can do the work she is trained to do.
- That is her job. Let’s try assuming she can do it, maybe?And the original wording makes me think that it’s not an offer to help carry her gear, but rather taking it from her and doing it.
and 5. Are you fucking kidding me?
How many times would you say “I got it bro,” before you think “wow, how many times do I have to say no” with some degree of annoyance? I am not saying going home stewing about it, but maybe mentioning it to your significant other as “guess what happened AGAIN today?” Being treated like you aren’t capable of doing your job would never bother you?
Not to the point that I would expect other people to punish the people saying this. Holding a formal inquest or telling them formally to cease and desist, with their careers obviously being held hostage if they fail to comply. That’s what started this thread - people could make anonymous complaints and statements that are innocuous to the person saying them could threaten their career.
Look. Watson, a professor who has had 50 years of resources poured into him to develop the experience and skills he has lost his job for making a remark about black people. Somehow, society can throw away a PhD with a nobel prize because he said something insulting - something that may be objectively true. (I’m not saying it is, but it could be)
Same fate for the President of Harvard - he remarked that it’s possible that there are less women on the right side of the bell curve. This is an accepted and plausible theory. (it also means less women on the left side of the curve - the theory says that women are more consistently intelligent overall per their evolutionary role, but less of them are geniuses or violent retards)
Same fate for another PhD recently who made a negative remark about women.
Do this consistently and often enough and entire civilizations can fail. Replace all your talented people with politically correct yes-men and who’s going to make the discoveries that matter?
This micro-aggression thing is a way to threaten the careers of honest, hardworking white guys who deserve their position and who are careful enough not to make any blatant racist or sexist statements.
I think in LA people are more willing to answer the question though, as there is less of a stigma from being international.
My son’s school had a project in 3rd or 4th grade where you were supposed to make a cloth doll of your family’s country of origin. Unlike the rest of his class, we were at a loss since we have been in the US for multiple generations, and come from mixed stock anyway. The teacher was insistent that we do something non-US however. In this case, the “where are you REALLY from” was a required assignment.
Dr. Watson made remarks about how Africans are inherently less intelligent than whites. That’s not a micro aggression, that’s racism. And it was hardly the first time he expressed asshole views; it was more of a straw that broke the camel’s back. This is the man who said that “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.” He also said that women in science may make it more “fun” for the men who were hard at work, but they probably weren’t as effective. I’m sure that “Rosy” appreciated that.
By the Harvard president, I assume you mean Dr. Summers, who made his remarks about women’s aptitude in January 2005, and was then given a salary increase (prompting a board member to resign in protest) and then resigned about a year later after a totally different controversy? Who was then given a significant paid sabbatical and then became a professor at Harvard in a fairly prestigious position? God, the horror of such a “fate. “
I don’t know who you meant by the third PhD.
I have been participating in the discussion of microaggressions because they do get tiresome. And as a white woman, I am subject to far fewer than many people. The reason I feel the discussion is important is NOT to threaten these hardworking careful white men you are concerned about. I think it’s something to be aware of, that even casual, “helpful” comments can nettle, and sting, and aggravate. If we don’t talk about the constant papercuts, how will society ever stop making those cuts?
But it’s interesting to me that if all those white men are drummed out, as it were, you feel that there will be no more accomplishments. No women or minorities are capable of making great strides? Perhaps, instead of just bringing down all the white men, how about the ones who still harbor racism and sexism? The ones who treat all races and sexes as capable and competent can continue to work alongside the others who are continuing to do great work.
Yes, well, that’s when we start nailing them for microaggression. That’s my point. The problem with a lot of these “equality” movements is they aren’t equality - they are a quiet way to slam a rival gender or racial group.
So we drop the microaggression movement. We deliberately stifle awareness of inequality in everyday attitudes. Everyone who gets diminished on a daily basis just sucks it up. We don’t ever discuss it. So how, in that scenario, does the situation ever change? You see the movement as a quiet way to slam a rival group-- but a lot of the actions currently labeled as microaggressions are just “quiet ways to slam a rival gender or racial group.”
I don’t see the point in punishing microaggressions. I do see the point in discussing them. Because I think the reason that they are so prevalent is because people don’t think about it. By talking about the constant societal attitudes of “lesser” or “other,” we think about them. We can point out that implying that the little lady needs the big construction worker’s help to do her actual job is not a “helpful” attitude.
No, it isn’t. And changing it wouldn’t change people’s minds. People in privileged positions react this same way to every concept that points their privilege out to them. Every time.
It’s exactly the same as the crying and whining that happens over “cis” or “mansplain”. They say, oh, we’d respect your idea if you picked a word we liked better!
No you wouldn’t, it’s the not the word you don’t like. It’s the idea behind it. You’re just looking for an excuse.
The first two are funny because she has probably spent as much quality time with a [del]spade[/del] shovel as any of them, and hers is probably more expensive, better treated, and sharper. Next, well, I was going to say that I’d be happy if somebody else dragged my shit around, but then I remembered a cartperson offering me an electric shopping cart (trolley for folks over one or the other pond) when he saw me dragging my ass in the parking lot. No thanks (grumble grumble)! The last one might be a safety issue; you can’t have people driving every which way on a construction site. Or they’re hiding the Bronze Age gravesite they just destroyed. One or the other.
Do people actually do anything to you every day that is this dismissive of your abilities that makes you so confident of your reaction?
You seem to like asking a lot of rhetorical questions that you think you already know the answer to. That isn’t good and certainly not open-minded. I will treat it like a real question. How about you let other people let them tell you what they think without you trying to do it for them (usually incorrectly)?
The answer is yes, abandon the term because it is built on faulty assumptions, misuse of common terms, and is both deliberately deceptive and intentionally inflammatory for no apparent reason.
The people that support this failed campaign are free to try again once they have a solid base of ideas to work with plus an honest and coherent name for it but that hasn’t happened yet.
That is OK. That is the way science works, even the social science models. The original idea failed so you refine it more and more so that it either works ultimately or it doesn’t. There isn’t anything wrong with that as long as your model has any kernel of truth at all. However, it is imperative on the people developing the (failed) theory to take the criticism at least as seriously as they take their own beliefs and modify those to account for new ideas. Failure to do that just means that you are participating in an academic version of religion rather than seeking the real truth.
You are utterly failing to realize that the situation is not neutral. The perfectly nice people who experience privilege, like me, have a vested interest in being blind to the minor inconveniences we visit onto other people. A purely democratic model means the status quo will never change, because it the very rare person who gives up power volutarily.
You can call it an “oopsie,” a cute little name that shows how silly and insignificant it is to the really nice white person (for example). My guess is that people will still resist the notion of the oopsie, because they don’t want to face up to the fact that just being normal hurts other people. Who would?
When our kids were asked “where are you REALLY from” my wife selected her Cornish ancestors, who were known to light fires, guiding ships onto rocks, for a little pin money when the tin mines were closed, my Frisian ancestors, who believed they were descended from the Little Mermaid, her own damn self (the legend got garbled over the centuries). Thus my children are descended from pirates and mermaids. They didn’t mention the Little Mermaid herself because they didn’t want to be seen as putting on airs and graces. Garden variety mermaids are good enough, and still better stock than any of their classmates came from.
There’s no point in wasting a nosy question by not giving a wiseass answer.
My question had nothing to do with the term, but rather the movement, which was what I was answering. So again, if we drop the MOVEMENT (call it whatever you like) how do things change? If no one talks about what’s wrong, how do we change? And no, I am NOT asking the question assuming I know your answer. If your objection is solely to the label, well, I actually agree. I think microagression implies a level of malice that is not consciously there.
So what DO you think? I am not assuming a thing. I really want to know. Without discussing it, how do we change social attitudes?