Allison Types - May 5, 2014

[Old Bull Lee]

"Microaggression" is just a theory.

This is my opinion: Life is hard, people sometimes are mean, I doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, people sometimes are disrespectful, and sometimes you face danger, it's not sexism or racism if someone gives you a bad look... It's (sadly) the real world.

And no, I'm not being an Alex Summers, I'm not gonna say something like "The M word represents everything I hate" or something like that... My point is: Everyone faces that kind of thing when going outside, regardless of their gender. We must focus on being strong, instead of overthinking it and feel vulnerable. That's my opinion, sorry if I offend anyone.

I was going to post, but this is 95% of I wanted to say.

The other 5% is this: it's human nature to judge other people by their appearances. At first glance, it's all you have to go on. People always assume I follow sports because I'm a man. Sometimes I get condescending treatment and I'm thought of as less of a man when I reveal that I don't. It's even happened in a job interview.

I'm very sympathetic to Allison's points. But these kinds of attitudes will die off a lot faster without all the navel-gazing academic analysis and Orwellian doublespeak, which is causing a backlash against feminism.

[Marc Lombardi]

The point of Types' scenario wasn't that That Man Was a Very Bad Man And Should Be Verbally Punished. It was that there are systemic patterns of ways people think about each other, particularly harmful to certain groups, that crop up all the time without malicious intention or realization.

And yet she never detailed why he felt the need to explain who the Trailblazers were to her. Likely because she didn't ask him. Because she didn't mention it to him. If I was in the middle of a conversation with someone who was talking about mani-pedis and in the middle of the conversation started to explain to me what a mani-pedi was I would say "Hey, I know what a mani-pedi is" and maybe even jokingly brush it off by saying something like "but you'll never hear me admit to having one done." Types didn't do that. She made the assumption (or at least the article gives it that appearance) that the guy "man-splained" who the Blazers are because she's "totes blonde" and/or because she's a woman. She's making an assumption. If the guys said "You probably don't know this because you're a girl but the Trailblazers are a basketball team." THAT is sexist. Assuming she didn't know who the Trailblazers were and explaining it to her was, at most, inconsiderate but without any input from his side we can only assume it was done (albeit without any malice) for sexist reasons based solely on the fact that we're only getting Types' side of this. Calling this interaction something based on systemic patterns is sorely misguided because you're also making these assumptions on why he said what he said.

[Marc Lombardi]

I came across this article and it made me think of this thread. It's not about sexism, it's about racism, and it's not about microaggressions per say so much as cultural ignorance, but I think it is very much relevant to the discussion on a wider level, and I'm curious what you all think.

The article.

I think it was a little interesting on how the author basically told the kid that he's not going to try to one-up him with regards to racism towards blacks vs. treatment of Jews, but then immediately gets into a discussion of one-up-manship. Additionally he also uses a tone that's very dismissive & condescending, which is a shame since I agree with a lot of what he said. The other part I really disagree with is how he graded the article with a "C" because he's a teacher. Again, very condescending.

[galaxygnome]

And yet she never detailed why he felt the need to explain who the Trailblazers were to her. Likely because she didn't ask him. Because she didn't mention it to him. If I was in the middle of a conversation with someone who was talking about mani-pedis and in the middle of the conversation started to explain to me what a mani-pedi was I would say "Hey, I know what a mani-pedi is" and maybe even jokingly brush it off by saying something like "but you'll never hear me admit to having one done." Types didn't do that. She made the assumption (or at least the article gives it that appearance) that the guy "man-splained" who the Blazers are because she's "totes blonde" and/or because she's a woman. She's making an assumption. If the guys said "You probably don't know this because you're a girl but the Trailblazers are a basketball team." THAT is sexist. Assuming she didn't know who the Trailblazers were and explaining it to her was, at most, inconsiderate but without any input from his side we can only assume it was done (albeit without any malice) for sexist reasons based solely on the fact that we're only getting Types' side of this. Calling this interaction something based on systemic patterns is sorely misguided because you're also making these assumptions on why he said what he said.

Sometimes, though, it's not about the man. It doesn't matter what he meant or didn't mean by it. It honestly does not matter. It's about her, and her experience, and her experience of being readily dismissed so frequently that regardless of someones' intent, their actions fit into a pattern she experiences daily based on her gender.

She's not angry with him. She's not even judging him. She's talking about her, and her experience. Not him.

[galaxygnome]

I think it was a little interesting on how the author basically told the kid that he's not going to try to one-up him with regards to racism towards blacks vs. treatment of Jews, but then immediately gets into a discussion of one-up-manship. Additionally he also uses a tone that's very dismissive & condescending, which is a shame since I agree with a lot of what he said. The other part I really disagree with is how he graded the article with a "C" because he's a teacher. Again, very condescending.

That sounds an awful lot like tone-policing to me.

[Marc Lombardi]

Sometimes, though, it's not about the man. It doesn't matter what he meant or didn't mean by it. It honestly does not matter. It's about her, and her experience, and her experience of being readily dismissed so frequently that regardless of someones' intent, their actions fit into a pattern she experiences daily based on her gender.

She's not angry with him. She's not even judging him. She's talking about her, and her experience. Not him.

That certainly doesn't sound very equal to me.

That sounds an awful lot like tone-policing to me.

That's a thing? Someone spent time coming up with a term for that? Did they get paid for it? Please tell me no one earned grant money coming up with that wishy washy feel good term.

[Petotto Parkavius]

Are you a man?

Yes dude, obviously I'm a man. I was just messing with you.

No, I explain what microaggressions are to anyone who needs it explained. Everyone can exhibit microaggressions - even women to other women, people of color to other people of color, etc. Women aren't magically born with all knowledge about all social injustices, including their own. Breaking that barrier takes time, and honestly, in many cases, the privilege of having access to certain paths of higher education/etc. The person's gender was irrelevant.

The point of Types' scenario wasn't that That Man Was a Very Bad Man And Should Be Verbally Punished. It was that there are systemic patterns of ways people think about each other, particularly harmful to certain groups, that crop up all the time without malicious intention or realization.

Except that I didn't need it explained.

[CliffHanger2]

I'd agree that a man assuming a woman doesn't know the basketball team of the city she lives in is sexist. But I think the article would be better served if she had a stronger example.

[Marc Lombardi]

That sounds an awful lot like tone-policing to me.

Reading more into Tone Policing, I can certainly see where that opens up an issue. Such as this example from Allison's article:

The man started talking about the Trailblazers, and then explained the Trailblazers were a basketball team in a way that you explain something to a child.

I'm not a child, at least I haven't been in a long time and gave no indication I DIDN'T know what a Trailblazer is.

You're right....Tone-policing is wrong and we should be more respectful when we call people out for things in regards to their tone.

Yes dude, obviously I'm a man. I was just messing with you.

I know. I got that the tongue was planted firmly in cheek with your original comment. I was just asking so that other people not making that educated assumption would understand.

[Max Aero]

This topic popped up in a deleted thread.

In any discussion where someone takes offense at something, the discussion grinds to a halt. It's an appeal to emotion. If I think what you just said is sexist/ableist/racist or whateverist, does that mean that my experiences trump your intentions?

There is something called confirmation bias. You can also reason backwards to explain something in the worst possible light because you want to be offended by something. Does that mean that I am automatically right? Would it mean that if you were to counter my claims you are merely imposing your views on me, denying me the right to be offended by something?

If I argued that all of Marvel's output is racist, because there aren't enough lead characters that aren't white, that the ones that are there have powers that are derivative and flawed and play into some kind of racist stereotype, that they don't get featured in high-profile stories or play integral parts in certain events, and that the promotion of such characters is second rate compared to the promotion of other titles and characters, would I be right, or would I be wrong?

I can't be wrong if we are having a discussion, because I've tied my arguments to how I experience the things I am discussing. I will add certain subjective quanitifiers that cannot be disproven. When you reason from emotion, you poison the discussion, because the other side can never actually win.

These discussions grind to a halt because people write off discussions around things that affect people as being motivated purely by emotion, side-stepping analysis of issues or a situation to claim some intellectual superiority. It is possible to discuss issues or instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. within the context of society, history, and the event itself. Empathy is an important social intelligence that is required to be able to discuss these things, please don't just write it off as confirmation bias.

I don't see anything in your 'Marvel' argument that ties it to a personal experience.
You can craft a 'racism in Marvel' argument however you like: you can compare numbers of diverse leads vs. straight/white/male ones, discuss the history of certain powers in the context of enduring racist stereotypes, compare promotional output for certain titles, etc. This is 'emotional' how? It affects people? It looks like you're painting a lot of (important) arguments with a very broad brush in an act of avoidance. If you don't want to participate in them, then don't. Otherwise it sounds like you take issue not with how these things are discussed, but that the discussions exist in the first place.
Discussions are not about "winning". They should be about delving deeper into an issue, learning more through words and critical thinking (that includes empathizing, a critical process). It's not about being right or wrong. That's a debate.

What is it called when someone crafts a hypothetical claim to describe a wide range of claims, and uses selective supporting statements that support their position?

[dupont2005]

Okay, apparently my last comment was offensive, so I'll try again: when did CBR become so focused on blogging about feminism?

You don't have to be a feminist to not like sexism.

[Tonamelt]

And yet she never detailed why he felt the need to explain who the Trailblazers were to her. Likely because she didn't ask him. Because she didn't mention it to him. If I was in the middle of a conversation with someone who was talking about mani-pedis and in the middle of the conversation started to explain to me what a mani-pedi was I would say "Hey, I know what a mani-pedi is" and maybe even jokingly brush it off by saying something like "but you'll never hear me admit to having one done." Types didn't do that. She made the assumption (or at least the article gives it that appearance) that the guy "man-splained" who the Blazers are because she's "totes blonde" and/or because she's a woman. She's making an assumption. If the guys said "You probably don't know this because you're a girl but the Trailblazers are a basketball team." THAT is sexist. Assuming she didn't know who the Trailblazers were and explaining it to her was, at most, inconsiderate but without any input from his side we can only assume it was done (albeit without any malice) for sexist reasons based solely on the fact that we're only getting Types' side of this. Calling this interaction something based on systemic patterns is sorely misguided because you're also making these assumptions on why he said what he said.

Yeah, the real problem is that the way i see it, she TOTALLY FAILED at being assertive.

If you are in the middle of a conversation, and you notice someone is being mean or disrespectful in one way or another (even if it is very subtle), you put a stop to that... Simple as that. You don't need to be rude, you can be classy.

So if she felt like the man was giving an innecesary explanation, she could have pointed the fact that she already knew what the Trailblazers are.

[Marc Lombardi]

Yeah, the real problem is that the way i see it, she TOTALLY FAILED at being assertive.

If you are in the middle of a conversation, and you notice someone is being mean or disrespectful in one way or another (even if it is very subtle), you put a stop to that... Simple as that. You don't need to be rude, you can be classy.

So if she felt like the man was giving an innecesary explanation, she could have pointed the fact that she already knew what the Trailblazers are.

Not true...she didn't fail because she doesn't HAVE to be assertive. The article failed because she failed to be assertive when she called out other people to do so:

We need to pay attention, take notice and speak up so it can enlighten everyone who might be unaware there's a problem that requires change.

...especially because she prefaced this with an example from something that happened a week ago and because...

There was a point in time in my life I wouldn't have noticed some random dude making a stereotypical sexist assumption about me. It would have rolled right off my back. But today I notice, and I'm not the only one.

[Tonamelt]

Not true...she didn't fail because she doesn't HAVE to be assertive.

I said she failed AT being assertive, I didn't say she failed BECAUSE SHE WASN'T assertive.

[thespianphryne]

Yeah, the real problem is that the way i see it, she TOTALLY FAILED at being assertive.

If you are in the middle of a conversation, and you notice someone is being mean or disrespectful in one way or another (even if it is very subtle), you put a stop to that... Simple as that. You don't need to be rude, you can be classy.

So if she felt like the man was giving an innecesary explanation, she could have pointed the fact that she already knew what the Trailblazers are.

Have you considered that it wasn't worth it to her or the friend she was dining with. Have you considered that perhaps the gentleman monologuing away didn't care to be interrupted. You can argue quite successfully that the article might be better with a clearer picture of all these things - including a description of how he was "explaining something to a child". But when you tell her how she ought to have dealt with the issue in the moment in such a way that her recounting of it shouldn't offend you, you've proven her point at a far deeper level without her even trying to.