Allison Types - May 5, 2014

[Marc Lombardi]

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.

The fact that you've taken a combative stance to her article, which you yourself have implied is trivial. And that you have continued to argue your point invariably, repetitiously and circularly is an indication that her point touches something of a nerve in you when it comes to matters like this.

Is this directed to me? Or someone else?

[thespianphryne]

Is this directed to me? Or someone else?

Thanks, I added the relevant quote for clarification.

[Rene Narciso]

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.

That is a nice article.

It illustrates well how the structures supporting racism have changed.

Until the time of the Holocaust, there was the widespread belief that people from different ethnicities were different in some essential way, and some were inferior. The 19th century and early 20th century actually had a lot of "science" and "logic" backing this up. Also, a lot of bloodline traditions and philosophy about the influence of the "blood". Post World War II, such theories became exposed as the poison they are.

A lot of people still think racism is restricted to that. The Jewish kid probably does. And since nowadays only a fringe minority supports those ideas, then supposedly there is no racism.

Of course, there are the lingering effects of the earlier ideas. Some of those effects linger for centuries. It's not like some fantasy movie where the Evil Overlord's death immediately heals the land.

Also, and more importantly, there are many people who just don't care. They're not like the earlier racists that actively believed in some fantasy about purer blood or a white society. They may have nothing against blacks or any other race, they don't think blacks are inferior, but they still don't care enough to feel bothered that other people experience injustice in their daily lives.

It's a failure of empathy. Compassion is then mocked as being a bleeding heart. People who talk about injustice are "locked into victim mindset".

The older right-wingers were conformists. The new ones are individualists with an ethos of "strength", of "logic", of enlighted self-sufficiency (a prettier name for Selfshiness, that still carry negative connotation despite their attempts to redeem it as a virtue). All of those "virtues" don't leave a lot of space for compassion and for putting yourself into other people's shoes.

[Marc Lombardi]

Thanks, I added the relevant quote for clarification.

Thank you.

[galaxygnome]

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


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.

I think you missed the part about how

A) tone-policing specifically refers to when members of an oppressing group (in the case of the linked article, white people) tell members of targeted groups that in order to be heard they must express their needs/issues related to oppression in ways the oppressing group finds polite/approachable/respective. the catch-22 of course, being that if no one raises any hell over a topic, the flip side is provided "well if it was really a big deal to you you'd be more vocal..." and

B) none of these things were happening in the example you provided. in this case the targeted/oppressive identities were flipped and they were certainly not discussing an issue about how the man was being oppressed/experiencing pain.

Except that I didn't need it explained.

Agree to disagree!

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.

Thank you.

[galaxygnome]

That is a nice article.

It illustrates well how the structures supporting racism have changed.

Until the time of the Holocaust, there was the widespread belief that people from different ethnicities were different in some essential way, and some were inferior. The 19th century and early 20th century actually had a lot of "science" and "logic" backing this up. Also, a lot of bloodline traditions and philosophy about the influence of the "blood". Post World War II, such theories became exposed as the poison they are.

A lot of people still think racism is restricted to that. The Jewish kid probably does. And since nowadays only a fringe minority supports those ideas, then supposedly there is no racism.

Of course, there are the lingering effects of the earlier ideas. Some of those effects linger for centuries. It's not like some fantasy movie where the Evil Overlord's death immediately heals the land.

Also, and more importantly, there are many people who just don't care. They're not like the earlier racists that actively believed in some fantasy about purer blood or a white society. They may have nothing against blacks or any other race, they don't think blacks are inferior, but they still don't care enough to feel bothered that other people experience injustice in their daily lives.

It's a failure of empathy. Compassion is then mocked as being a bleeding heart. People who talk about injustice are "locked into victim mindset".

The older right-wingers were conformists. The new ones are individualists with an ethos of "strength", of "logic", of enlighted self-sufficiency (a prettier name for Selfshiness, that still carry negative connotation despite their attempts to redeem it as a virtue). All of those "virtues" don't leave a lot of space for compassion and for putting yourself into other people's shoes.

Absolutely! I don't really have anything to add to this - just yeah, absolutely. we're jiving on the same page lol

[Lt Trouble]

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.

Yeah, it's disappointing, but not that surprising, that most of this discussion has come down to defending or attacking this one guy. It's not about that one guy. Heck, it's likely that he's a nice guy who wasn't even aware that his assumption that women don't know anything about sports is insulting and sexist.

The problem is with the broad social/cultural attitudes that this was just one small example of, where sexist stereotypes are pervasive, ingrained, and unquestioned, and cause people to say and do things that they may not even understand are hurtful.

[Lt Trouble]

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.

And then the guy probably would've thought she was being "bitchy" and gotten all defensive and weird, and maybe said or done something unpleasant. That's usually what happens.

[Tonamelt]

And then the guy probably would've thought she was being "bitchy" and gotten all defensive and weird, and maybe said or done something unpleasant. That's usually what happens.

Or he could have realized his obvious mistake, and apologize.

[Marc Lombardi]

And then the guy probably would've thought she was being "bitchy" and gotten all defensive and weird, and maybe said or done something unpleasant. That's usually what happens.

I think it's a little disappointing that your immediate assumption is that he PROBABLY would've thought she was being bitch, gotten defensive and weird and maybe done something weird. I think you're unfairly assuming the worst about someone who not one post earlier you referred to as likely being a nice guy.

She isn't angry. She isn't judging. And he's a nice guy who probably wouldn't have reacted rationally and instead would have chewed her head off.

That is colossally unfair.

[Rocket Red]

We don't know, true, but I think this was an EXAMPLE of something, that is a single instance of something she noticed as a pattern. And I have to tell you, unless people know me, they DO assume I know sports because I'm a man. I am a terrible over-explainer myself, so I do get that this could have been his personality, but I think she was simply making a point about something and use this single event to describe the pattern. Let's not get lost in the minutia as a way to deny the pattern.

The entire argument hangs on this exact type of minutia. It all hangs on her personal interpretation of the "hows-and-whys" of his action during their interaction. Which I was trying to point out are honestly unknown. Do I think sexism is bad? Yep. Do I think this article does anything? I guess not, especially because the "crisis," if you will, isn't much as one. Chalk that up to MY socialization - I guess I enjoy sensational reading. Or maybe I'm a horrible sexist. Or maybe I don't get bothered by much at all anymore because of some tragic near-death experience. The point is moot - you've already made a judgment:

[Stony]

From the Rules:

BE CIVIL

Treat everyone with civility, keep the snark to a minimum, and do not insult other people. We cannot stress that last part enough: DO NOT INSULT OTHER PEOPLE. Engaging in insulting behavior is a bannable offense, and not the kind you come back from. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been here, whether you’re a newb or veteran, it will not be tolerated. Keep the example we mentioned in the Community Standards in mind; if you wouldn’t say it as a guest in someone else’s home, don’t say it here.

[dupont2005]

I think it's a little disappointing that your immediate assumption is that he PROBABLY would've thought she was being bitch, gotten defensive and weird and maybe done something weird. I think you're unfairly assuming the worst about someone who not one post earlier you referred to as likely being a nice guy.

She isn't angry. She isn't judging. And he's a nice guy who probably wouldn't have reacted rationally and instead would have chewed her head off.

That is colossally unfair.

What if he wasn't a nice guy, and decided to beat her up and rape her because of what she said? Men threaten to do that a lot it seems. I'm not judging, just understanding the kinds of things women have to worry about that we don't. Confronting a guy in a part for saying something offensive might not be the best idea.

[Marc Lombardi]

What if he wasn't a nice guy, and decided to beat her up and rape her because of what she said? Men threaten to do that a lot it seems. I'm not judging, just understanding the kinds of things women have to worry about that we don't. Confronting a guy in a part for saying something offensive might not be the best idea.

Someone keeps sniping my comments so I'll say this as blandly and succinctly as possible.

I also find that to be an interesting point of view as the author chose to call for the action of people who experience such sexism to stand up for themselves, but you're saying the opposite. Which should it be? After all on a scale of 1-10 in misogyny this was about a 2-3.

Expecting someone to assault and rape a woman in front of his own wife for an innocuous "Dude, I know who the Blazers are" is the epitome of "That escallated fast!"

[Rene Narciso]

Absolutely! I don't really have anything to add to this - just yeah, absolutely. we're jiving on the same page lol

Cool!

Do I make the comment about great minds thinking alike?