Microaggressions and What Can Be Done About Them (At Ithaca College)
- Thread starter Liosse de Velishaf
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
I'm reportiong you to Ithaca College, William.
What a LOVELY illustration of just how useless a microaggression filter is. No one else even commented.
Perhaps I phrased things a bit poorly. I greatly appreciate everyone in this thread who has actually tried to engage in a real discussion about the issue.
Several people have made comments which imply to me that they think the first amendment right to free speech (actually intended to prevent the government from criminalizing critique of that government) means that no one can critique speech they find to be offensive/hurtful/misguided etc.
Particularly, kikazaru said that having to consider whether comments they thought were innocuous might be offensive or hurtful to others stifled free speech and social interaction. I don't agree that that's the case.
I will attempt to be more specific in the future.
People already filter between what thoughts may cross their mind, and what they may say out loud. The point of the thought experiment was to point that out. Nobody says every little thing they think. So if we're already doing a certain amount of thinking before we speak, I'm not sure why doing a bit more is suddenly an attack on free speech.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
I still don't think that's a very honest reading. No one thinks their Constitutional rights are being violated by criticism. And "free speech" does have meanings beyond the strictly First Amendment legal definition.
I don't think anyone us disputing that--or claiming the way the college is doing things is right.
The bad side of call-out culture does not mean that microaggressions do not exist. I don't think it's disputable that there's a status quo and a lot of ingrained prejudice in the world.
No, but a lot of people are very defensive toward the idea that they could ever say something prejudiced without meaning to, or that something they take for granted as okay might not be. And I am seeing some of that in this thread.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,176
- Reaction score
- 3,200
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
So coining a word for a new concept is bad? Why? Because it might help people perceive and identify something? What?
I don't get it. Neologisms are created all the time. Often they are coined because of a need for them. Sometimes, terms like "Social Justice Warrior" are made up for attack purposes, but not all neologisms are employed like that.
The idea that victims are created by naming offenses seems dubious. At least as often people will ignore the harmful qualities of something and pretend it doesn't happen because there is no way of talking about it.
The idea that intent alone should characterize whether or not something is harmful is ridiculous. Neglegence and recklessness are viable and useful concepts. Negligent or reckless insults are still insults.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
Neologisms aren't bad in themselves. I already explained why I object to "microaggressions" in particular.
It's not more than microannoying to me, though.
I'd like to know, specifically, what is going to be done with data from this reporting, what is not going to be done, and what protections will be afforded to anyone who participates before I form an opinion.
I like data about microaggressions, and I like to know what people in different groups think are and aren't microaggressions against themselves. The trouble, for me, is that microaggressions can be a very individual thing and can cross group boundaries.
A statement might or might not be a microaggression to any given individual in a group. I.e., I feel complimented when someone tells me I look nice. Based on that interaction, the person who complimented me probably feels like it's good to tell woman they look nice. I understand his confusion when someone says it's a microaggression.
The other thing that's sometimes confusing about microaggressions is that the face-value comment can be used with lots of groups and without knowing the underlying issue for that specific group, it's difficult to clearly identify it as a microaggression. For example, I recently saw this listed as a microaggression: "Assuming black people have children." And I'm not sure what to do with that. I don't really understand how offense is being taken and that makes it difficult for me to internalize it and make it a part of "things I know not to say."
The trouble is that I assume that everyone assumes that everyone has children. I (a white person) cannot remember a time I've met another adult, and that adult didn't ask some variation of, "So how many children do you have?" Is there a nuance with this question re:minority groups that I just am unaware of?
I do get annoyed by this question, btw, because I feel like it assumes that, as a woman, I must have children. I probably would not get annoyed, I also assume, if I actually did have children. Is this, therefore, also a microaggression against women, in general? Or only childless women... or only black women, or even black, childless women? Can groups share microaggressions for similar or even for very different reasons?
Oh, I have a third issue with microaggressions, actually. Sometimes, I feel like it enables one part of a group to tell the other part of the group what they have to find offensive. One part of the group, in essence, speaks for all of the group. That guy who complimented me on my appearance in the office is later told that's a microaggression, that "women" are offended by it, and feels like he can't compliment me any more. I work hard to look nice, and I appreciate knowing that I succeeded at it. But he's not able to read minds, so he errs on the side of caution, and I never get complimented again. Does my wish to be complimented outweigh the wish of someone else to feel like they're being treated in a sexist manner or vice versa?
So these are a few of the reasons I feel like being really skilled at avoiding or understanding some of the more nuanced microaggressions is a difficult task and why I might be tempted to balk at a "reporting" program if it weren't really well defined and used in a fair manner.
When people talk about microaggressions, it feels like there should be easy-to-follow rules about it, as though it were something you could read a list of and then be socially good to go. But it's not. It's seemingly much more nebulous and an occasional mine field for even an average, socially conscious person.
I like data about microaggressions, and I like to know what people in different groups think are and aren't microaggressions against themselves. The trouble, for me, is that microaggressions can be a very individual thing and can cross group boundaries.
A statement might or might not be a microaggression to any given individual in a group. I.e., I feel complimented when someone tells me I look nice. Based on that interaction, the person who complimented me probably feels like it's good to tell woman they look nice. I understand his confusion when someone says it's a microaggression.
The other thing that's sometimes confusing about microaggressions is that the face-value comment can be used with lots of groups and without knowing the underlying issue for that specific group, it's difficult to clearly identify it as a microaggression. For example, I recently saw this listed as a microaggression: "Assuming black people have children." And I'm not sure what to do with that. I don't really understand how offense is being taken and that makes it difficult for me to internalize it and make it a part of "things I know not to say."
The trouble is that I assume that everyone assumes that everyone has children. I (a white person) cannot remember a time I've met another adult, and that adult didn't ask some variation of, "So how many children do you have?" Is there a nuance with this question re:minority groups that I just am unaware of?
I do get annoyed by this question, btw, because I feel like it assumes that, as a woman, I must have children. I probably would not get annoyed, I also assume, if I actually did have children. Is this, therefore, also a microaggression against women, in general? Or only childless women... or only black women, or even black, childless women? Can groups share microaggressions for similar or even for very different reasons?
Oh, I have a third issue with microaggressions, actually. Sometimes, I feel like it enables one part of a group to tell the other part of the group what they have to find offensive. One part of the group, in essence, speaks for all of the group. That guy who complimented me on my appearance in the office is later told that's a microaggression, that "women" are offended by it, and feels like he can't compliment me any more. I work hard to look nice, and I appreciate knowing that I succeeded at it. But he's not able to read minds, so he errs on the side of caution, and I never get complimented again. Does my wish to be complimented outweigh the wish of someone else to feel like they're being treated in a sexist manner or vice versa?
So these are a few of the reasons I feel like being really skilled at avoiding or understanding some of the more nuanced microaggressions is a difficult task and why I might be tempted to balk at a "reporting" program if it weren't really well defined and used in a fair manner.
When people talk about microaggressions, it feels like there should be easy-to-follow rules about it, as though it were something you could read a list of and then be socially good to go. But it's not. It's seemingly much more nebulous and an occasional mine field for even an average, socially conscious person.
I wish the article had been a lot clearer about exactly how the system would be implemented.
I also have some of the same problems with declaring any particular thing as a clear micro-aggression. It's definitely a complex topic that could use more discussion.
Last edited:
The links had a link to an interview with the backer of the bill, and she did explain that there would be a committee formed to determine 'legal' action.
I'm seeing a microaggression in her list of demographic info that would be collected, btw! It doesn't include disability status, religion (or lack thereof), or socioeconomic class. She's ignoring those characteristics in favor of her favorite characteristics, clearly.
Actually, I do think the idea is good for professors and maybe for allowed speech in class. I had about 3 professors who really needed a talking to (back in the day). Two of them made fun of me for being sick (because they doubted it) in front of the whole class, often. I actually had a hard-to-diagnose bad disease, as it turns out!
One was a great guy but he'd always say he was relieved when a Japanese girl dropped the class, because he worried Japanese folks would get offended over the WWII lectures!
And a psych professor of mine actually called out a girl who dropped the class as being clearly bi-polar. That is so not cool. The other girls asked which symptoms she displayed, etc. The whole class discussion was completely inappropriate, imho.
This was a small women's college, btw. The smallness made some of the things about it a problem, I think.
I'm seeing a microaggression in her list of demographic info that would be collected, btw! It doesn't include disability status, religion (or lack thereof), or socioeconomic class. She's ignoring those characteristics in favor of her favorite characteristics, clearly.
Actually, I do think the idea is good for professors and maybe for allowed speech in class. I had about 3 professors who really needed a talking to (back in the day). Two of them made fun of me for being sick (because they doubted it) in front of the whole class, often. I actually had a hard-to-diagnose bad disease, as it turns out!
One was a great guy but he'd always say he was relieved when a Japanese girl dropped the class, because he worried Japanese folks would get offended over the WWII lectures!
And a psych professor of mine actually called out a girl who dropped the class as being clearly bi-polar. That is so not cool. The other girls asked which symptoms she displayed, etc. The whole class discussion was completely inappropriate, imho.
This was a small women's college, btw. The smallness made some of the things about it a problem, I think.
Last edited:
If someone has social anxiety then there is absolutely a chance that they would choose not to interact rather than risk accidentally saying the wrong thing and being chastised for it. It's one thing if a person learns ahead of time that certain phrases can be interpreted as offensive but it's another entirely if one doesn't know which phrases are a problem until after one has said them and been piled on. Such a scenario, of course, leads to a question I have had for some time.
What happens when the well-being of one marginalized group comes into conflict with the well-being of another marginalized group? What happens when what one group needs puts another group at risk?
It's a good question. I think it ties in a bit to what Heza was saying, except that that was within one group whereas this is between groups.
That didn't seem to be the point kikazaru was making, but it's still one worth considering, and I could have done a better job by acknowledging that.
As someone who does have social anxiety, it is something I've struggled with when trying to live my ideals. Certainly I've had a lot of trouble with it as regards sexism/feminism.
There's always a risk in any social interaction that you might do or say something that hurts or offends or makes uncomfortable another party in the interaction. I think the most general thing we can take from the concept of micro-aggressions is how to estimate the probability of such a faux pas. It's likely higher the more different the other party is from you. That's somewhat easier to deal with when the difference is obvious, such as clear gender or race differences. It can be harder to deal with in terms of neurotypicality or socio-economic status or religion or some disabilities or medical conditions.
It's an example of privilege to say that the onus must always rest on the marginalized group, and that it's never fair to transfer some of that burden to the majority group.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
Part of that was my fault as I read your original post wrong, asking should there be a law allowing people to say what they want.
Look, as a general rule, we should think before we speak. We should all try not to say stuff that's offensive and if we do apologize. Here's the thing. What's offensive to 1 person is perfectly fine to another. Eventually people have to learn to work it out among themselves or suffer the consequences. If I say stuff that pisses off the people around me, I won't get offered that promotion or invited to the party or allowed inside the walls when the zombies come, etc. But when it get's so complicated that we have this term for it, then who becomes the arbiter of what's wrong or right, offensive or not? And when people can complain about a person without that other person being there to give defense, explain context or rebuke what was said. I see this as being problematic at best. And it just gives into the culture of if you don't like something, there ought to be a rule against it. No more working it out or dealing with it head on.
Again, what do they plan on doing with this?
Unfortunately I've been on both sides of this sort of micro-aggression, but I'll tell you about one time in band camp.
There was this dude. Pretty cool, I thought. We were working in the same group for a month or longer and I started to hear him talk and value his opinion. I'm quickly balding and related to him over that, because he was balding also.
Then, maybe a little out of the blue, I asked him where he was from. His reaction was something between kind of negative and like I'd caught him off-guard. Afterwards I worried about hurting his feelings or making him feel set apart from the rest of the group I'd been working with: A group predominantly but not exclusively comprised of white people. I'm not sure if my question had a negative effect upon him. He left the group before I did.
It's strange. I felt guilty about that for quite some time even though I believed there was context (a group with concerns about pluralistic understanding, for example), but I also believe I was driven more by personal curiosity, as a matter of insight into his experience of society. How could our experiences not be different? I thought. By virtue originally of having a completely distinct perspective on the world. He sees with two eyes not mine. Thinks with a brain that doesn't belong to me. But a white person, a black person -- do we not experience the world distinctly by the facts of where we're from, the shades of our skin? I think that's one of the base ideas of outreach programs. Cultural understanding gives way to compassionate action.
Only after the fact did I realize nobody could give a shit about where I was from, so offering it freely wasn't very helpful to comfort the discomfited, and that part of his experience might have been or still be fielding what he felt or continues to feel like was or is an unnecessary or offensive question. A white-male-centric question (not that I could speak from a black-woman's perspective, if you see what I mean).
It also occurred to me that had other people asked him hundreds of times they may have had ulterior motives that I couldn't be responsible for and felt ignorant by my lack of consideration.
Well, that was in my early twenties. Should have known better. Should have studied in Phila or NY. Should have kept quiet. Now I think if a person wants to share that information, they will offer it freely, unprovoked.
Lastly, in response to the OP: micro-aggressions are lot like sexual harassment. There probably should be some legal way of dealing with micro-aggressions, especially if micro-aggressions have political or economic effects, such as: when asked my ethnicity, I felt compelled to quit my job for fear of being ostracized over my answer.
There was this dude. Pretty cool, I thought. We were working in the same group for a month or longer and I started to hear him talk and value his opinion. I'm quickly balding and related to him over that, because he was balding also.
Then, maybe a little out of the blue, I asked him where he was from. His reaction was something between kind of negative and like I'd caught him off-guard. Afterwards I worried about hurting his feelings or making him feel set apart from the rest of the group I'd been working with: A group predominantly but not exclusively comprised of white people. I'm not sure if my question had a negative effect upon him. He left the group before I did.
It's strange. I felt guilty about that for quite some time even though I believed there was context (a group with concerns about pluralistic understanding, for example), but I also believe I was driven more by personal curiosity, as a matter of insight into his experience of society. How could our experiences not be different? I thought. By virtue originally of having a completely distinct perspective on the world. He sees with two eyes not mine. Thinks with a brain that doesn't belong to me. But a white person, a black person -- do we not experience the world distinctly by the facts of where we're from, the shades of our skin? I think that's one of the base ideas of outreach programs. Cultural understanding gives way to compassionate action.
Only after the fact did I realize nobody could give a shit about where I was from, so offering it freely wasn't very helpful to comfort the discomfited, and that part of his experience might have been or still be fielding what he felt or continues to feel like was or is an unnecessary or offensive question. A white-male-centric question (not that I could speak from a black-woman's perspective, if you see what I mean).
It also occurred to me that had other people asked him hundreds of times they may have had ulterior motives that I couldn't be responsible for and felt ignorant by my lack of consideration.
Well, that was in my early twenties. Should have known better. Should have studied in Phila or NY. Should have kept quiet. Now I think if a person wants to share that information, they will offer it freely, unprovoked.
Lastly, in response to the OP: micro-aggressions are lot like sexual harassment. There probably should be some legal way of dealing with micro-aggressions, especially if micro-aggressions have political or economic effects, such as: when asked my ethnicity, I felt compelled to quit my job for fear of being ostracized over my answer.
Last edited:
I am a little uncomfortable with the apparent goal of legal action implied by some parts of the article. I definitely agree that could be a very negative effect of this project/system.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that has to do with people believing that black people are more likely to have a lot of children out of wedlock or get pregnant as teens, and making assumptions about people as a result. It's not very clear, though.
But I bet that statement is referring more to things like being quick to assume that a young black girl is the mother of a baby/toddler, but assuming that a white girl is the baby's sister.
Something can definitely be a microaggression against multiple groups, for similar or different reasons. Nobody has a monopoly on it.
Honestly, while I don't think anyone should try to speak for everyone, I think that some consideration should be given to who is losing more in a given situation. Just like nobody can say that something is offensive to everyone, nobody can say it's okay in general just because it's okay to them. And unfortunately, a lot of people tend to act like individual minorities speak for the entire group, leading to "But my female/gay/black friend isn't offended by this!" defenses. Telling people that something is okay because you don't agree that it's a microaggression can be a form of speaking on behalf of everyone, too, and it can have bigger repercussions than the reverse.
Compliments are tricky. I don't think there's anything wrong with genuine compliments from men, like "You did great in that presentation earlier!" or "I like your haircut!" If the guy is treating the woman like he would another man, then that's not a microaggression in my opinion. But sometimes I see women say that they enjoy being catcalled on the street, for example, and I think it's wrong to encourage stuff like that just because you happen to enjoy it. I think that not being yelled at by men on the street is a small price to pay for supporting other women who feel harassed and whose lives are negatively affected by that behavior.
Similarly, there are things that I'm not personally offended by, but I'm not going to say, "Psh. That's not offensive. Do whatever you want!" Because I can't speak for everyone, and I would rather people be a little cautious and learn to recognize that minorities are individuals than to take my opinion as permission.
I think sometimes there are easy to follow rules. It's easy to tell people that they shouldn't ask black people if they can touch their hair, or to take for granted that any Hispanic person is Mexican, for example.
But other times, I don't think it's so much of a "do this, not that" thing as it is about just being aware and open-minded.
I used to have an acquaintance who was Roma, and she was very offended by the word "gypsy" because to her, it was a serious slur. Before meeting her, I'd never heard of the word being a slur before. Since then, I've talked to other Roma people who are fine with the word, don't see it as a slur, or even use it to refer to themselves. I don't think that means my first acquaintance was wrong. I think it's probably a complicated thing with no right or wrong answer, and that as someone who doesn't come from that background, it's probably best for me to be considerate and follow the lead of whoever I'm with who's actually a member of that ethnic group.
The above-bolded is something I've long been trying to find the line on. A lot of the time, micro-aggressions take place in an inappropriate context, or in clear contrast to interactions towards other people in the same context. No one has a right to someone else's gratitude or perspective or whatever it is someone wants out of the interaction. Perhaps in many cases it's better to let the other person offer the information instead of asking them for it. Or, in the case of compliments, perhaps consider whether the compliment is appropriate to the context. I'm not putting these down as hard and fast rules.
Certainly it's probably impossible to 100% avoid offending someone some time. But if we could reduce the accidental or more subtle slights to minorities by even 25 or 50%, it would make a big difference.
Yes, a lot of it is context. When it comes to "where are you from?" it's usually easy to tell in context whether someone has a sincere interest in your background, or if they're just struggling to fit you in a box. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes you're just tired of the question either way.
I can be here locally with friends just like me and be the only asked where I'm from. It's because my accent isn't as strong as the local one. It's code for 'are you a Yankee?' 
When I say 'here' they always ask lots of follow-up questions, lol.
That doesn't bother me, because it's not about race or anything. But people sure are more than curious about where exactly you fit in to their idea of things!
When I say 'here' they always ask lots of follow-up questions, lol.That doesn't bother me, because it's not about race or anything. But people sure are more than curious about where exactly you fit in to their idea of things!
Really.
I think I'm taking the chastising tone of this post to be somewhat micro aggressive.
I don't deliberately seek out people of different nationalities to chat or to compliment them on their clothing, but I will talk to anyone who seems friendly and willing to talk to me - on airplanes, when I'm standing in line at the movies, choosing tomatoes at the grocery store. I will talk to drunks and panhandlers. I don't care what their colour or nationality is - people are interesting. However, apparently now I can only do so to my racial peers because asking some one whose skin colour is different than mine, where they got those great boots (and thereby starting a conversation about a store I hadn't heard of), could be construed as being racist?
Good to know. I suppose next time I see someone who is of a different race or nationality I'll keep my trap shut and only talk to the white person next to them.
I honestly have no idea how you came to this interpretation of the post you quoted.