Allison Types - May 5, 2014

[harashkupo]

If someone is a writer, going home and writing about it IS an appropriate response.

She calls for people to stand up and take action but doesn't when the opportunity presented itself. Writing about it doesn't help the guy in the story.

[Aegrus]

It probably used to roll off her back because she - like many/most women - grew up with that treatment, and just kind of... assume that it's normal. Annoying, but what are you going to do about it, that's just how men are and how the media is. It's easy to internalize these kinds of messages, because they're all around us constantly.

Loving this...

[RockyBanks]

As a man, a comic geek, and an IT professional, I'm familiar with the blurry line between "mansplaining" and "speaking Greek". In any potentially-esoteric conversation, one often has to err on one side or the other. Personally, I am often accused of "mansplaining" when I try to be helpful, and of "speaking Greek" when I assume familiarity with the topic.

[gwangung]

She calls for people to stand up and take action but doesn't when the opportunity presented itself. Writing about it doesn't help the guy in the story.

So, you're saying that the person who was wronged was the guy in the story?

[gwangung]

I began to type at least two different paragraphs when I realized... all this board reboot has done is made me terrified to post an opinion that might seem even remotely contrary to an article like this. I'm liable to get banned even if I think I present my opinion in a well thought out way.

Basically, a lot of people feel this way, but what it boils down to being afraid of "being wrong."

The thing is that the problem isn't "being wrong"; it's for "being wrong" and being a jerk about it. I've rarely seen people banned for saying something racist and sexist....and almost NEVER when they are honest and open in asking others why their statement was seen as sexist/racist. Even when the people involved ultimately disagree, I've rarely seen anyone get banned unless they were being a jerk or an ass.

[harashkupo]

So, you're saying that the person who was wronged was the guy in the story?

No not at all but like I said in my original post even though I agree with the article the words feel hollow. It's my belief that there's a difference between calling for change actually enacting it. A nice couple sat down with her and her friend and starting chatting and the writer says his behavior was sexist. Following that she literally tells the readers when faced with discrimination we need to stand up and do something about it. In this article that didn't happen and it felt like a missed opportunity to enact real change with this person.

[Petotto Parkavius]

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

[Nisus]

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

You mean, those 2 post in three weeks?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You don't like that kind of articles? Just don't read them; some people don't like the reviews, or "The buy pile", etc.
Anyway, I think it's necessary in this culture, where some producers (and CBR users) think that the public "is not ready" for female-lead films, TV shows, and comics.

[galaxygnome]

I can't argue with this sentiment. It's applies not just to discrimination but anytime someone sees something wrong. But this piece seems hollow after I finished reading it. While talking to this guy she felt he was being condescending "making a stereotypical sexist assumption" about her which seemed unintentional. Instead of letting him know, she just lets it happen and writes an article about it.

Isn't this the time to open up a dialogue and fix the situation by letting him know that it was wrong to talk to her that way? This seemed to be exactly what the spirit of the article was about but failing to actually put it into practice.

Because change cannot only come from the people who receive the lesser treatment. When little things like this happen - called microaggressions - the receiver is in an uncomfortable place. When I have been in situations like this before, there are essentially two options, both of which I have tried with their own benefits/losses based on context:

1) I can call the person out on the encounter. Gently, of course, as I realize their intent wasn't malicious.

IMPACT: As is typical when we are called out, no matter how gently, the person gets uncomfortable, distances themselves from me. I will likely get a "Haha don't get so upset I didn't mean anything by it!" Which yanno, I know, but isn't really the point. Sometimes, this results in a long, exhausting, tiresome conversation about what just happened, which we will likely have in the face of their awkward resistance, which is fine, really, but... not easy. Especially because I don't want to come off as elitist or arrogant - I'm not looking down at that person, but it can be difficult to not look that way when I have a lot of dedicated academic knowledge/experience in an area, we are in a casual setting, that person was not expecting to get a lesson, and I just told them they did something offensive but they don't think they did. It is an uncomfortable and awkward situation. They will either A)Non-responsively take their leave B) Laugh and dismiss me as being "easily offended" or C) turn it into a debate I didn't want to have.

2) I can ignore it, hide my feelings of irritation, find a way to dissect it later when I am not in a compromised/forced social situation I can't take leave of, laugh it off like "one of the guys."

IMPACT: This is the most persuasive, because it doesn't invite change, good or bad, it just keeps everything in a manageable stasis. I may feel a little less warm to the person, depending on what they said I might be upset, but I swallow it for that time in order to avoid bigger discomfort. They don't notice anything. Sometimes this actually helps because then people are MORE comfortable saying MORE problematic things to me later... which I can discuss much easier and in more contextually appropriate settings.

The reality is, it's going to be some mix of both in different situations. If I called out every single microaggression I ever saw I would rarely have a happy day. You pick your battles. And different people are going to have different ratios, or different tools they use. Types' tool of appealing to a wider audience rather than one person, is a perfectly legitimate tool.

Also? I don't think she had this experience and was like TIME TO GO WRITE ABOUT IT!!! I think she knew the topic she wanted to write about, and chose one example - out of the many most women will experience on the daily - to help ground her piece.

[galaxygnome]

No not at all but like I said in my original post even though I agree with the article the words feel hollow. It's my belief that there's a difference between calling for change actually enacting it. A nice couple sat down with her and her friend and starting chatting and the writer says his behavior was sexist. Following that she literally tells the readers when faced with discrimination we need to stand up and do something about it. In this article that didn't happen and it felt like a missed opportunity to enact real change with this person.

Everyone's behavior is sexist, no one is some kind of anti-sexist god who magically doesn't get the message from society. Everyone - including women, who deal with an internalized variation of it - has ingrained sexist beliefs they need to confront. The author calls out one instance where no one but her realized its problematic nature to draw a comparison to larger no-ill-intended but ultimately ill-impacting events.

She is doing something about it. She is writing. You don't really know what her response to these events on a daily basis, how often she calls it out and how often she doesn't. IMO, she's talking about how the big things - media representation, etc - need to be called out because they trickle down to every day casual encounters.

[harashkupo]

Because change cannot only come from the people who receive the lesser treatment. When little things like this happen - called microaggressions - the receiver is in an uncomfortable place. When I have been in situations like this before, there are essentially two options, both of which I have tried with their own benefits/losses based on context:

1) I can call the person out on the encounter. Gently, of course, as I realize their intent wasn't malicious.

IMPACT: As is typical when we are called out, no matter how gently, the person gets uncomfortable, distances themselves from me. I will likely get a "Haha don't get so upset I didn't mean anything by it!" Which yanno, I know, but isn't really the point. Sometimes, this results in a long, exhausting, tiresome conversation about what just happened, which we will likely have in the face of their awkward resistance, which is fine, really, but... not easy. Especially because I don't want to come off as elitist or arrogant - I'm not looking down at that person, but it can be difficult to not look that way when I have a lot of dedicated academic knowledge/experience in an area, we are in a casual setting, that person was not expecting to get a lesson, and I just told them they did something offensive but they don't think they did. It is an uncomfortable and awkward situation. They will either A)Non-responsively take their leave B) Laugh and dismiss me as being "easily offended" or C) turn it into a debate I didn't want to have.

2) I can ignore it, hide my feelings of irritation, find a way to dissect it later when I am not in a compromised/forced social situation I can't take leave of, laugh it off like "one of the guys."

IMPACT: This is the most persuasive, because it doesn't invite change, good or bad, it just keeps everything in a manageable stasis. I may feel a little less warm to the person, depending on what they said I might be upset, but I swallow it for that time in order to avoid bigger discomfort. They don't notice anything. Sometimes this actually helps because then people are MORE comfortable saying MORE problematic things to me later... which I can discuss much easier and in more contextually appropriate settings.

The reality is, it's going to be some mix of both in different situations. If I called out every single microaggression I ever saw I would rarely have a happy day. You pick your battles. And different people are going to have different ratios, or different tools they use. Types' tool of appealing to a wider audience rather than one person, is a perfectly legitimate tool.

Also? I don't think she had this experience and was like TIME TO GO WRITE ABOUT IT!!! I think she knew the topic she wanted to write about, and chose one example - out of the many most women will experience on the daily - to help ground her piece.

I want to start by saying thank you. I appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to word your response to not sound aggressive or accusational. I feel comfortable talking about this without the fear that I already offended you.

I completely understand what you've said and I agree with almost all of it. The first highlighted area you left out one very important and kinda rare option D) They realize their mistake, apologize, and move on. There are good people out there who take constructive criticism well and welcome it. If I offend someone I want to know about it so I won't do it again and my friends are the same way. You're right that a person has to choose their battles but the whole point of opening a dialogue is so these issues do not get ignored and occur over and over again.

About the second part I don't think that's what happened but in a piece about taking a stand in the face of prejudice it didn't really happen within the context of the story.

[DocSpin]

Isn't this the time to open up a dialogue and fix the situation by letting him know that it was wrong to talk to her that way? This seemed to be exactly what the spirit of the article was about but failing to actually put it into practice.

I completely agree. This was a classic opportunity for a "teachable moment". But rather than respectfully address the unintended slight the author chose to internalize her anger and channel it into the relative safety of a blog. What is that old saying? If you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[Rene Narciso]

I've often suffered the flip side of this sexist attitude about team sports. I am male, and I was raised in a worker class family in Brazil. Brazilians also are crazy about team sports (though not the same sports as Americans). Disliking team sports was one more thing that marked me as "odd" growing up. I'm not talking only about being a geek here. Geeks were not excused. No, the unspoken assumption in the Brazilian generations previous to mine was that a male kid that disliked sports was effeminate, possibly gay. I had many adults snickering whenever I confessed that I hated sports. Apparently, the expected next step was for me to take up ballet dancing.

Then I grew up and moved away from my working class neighbourhood and discovered, to my joy, that there were more upscale communities where males were not expected to automatically go crazy at the prospect of kicking a ball or watching games at TV. But I do remain sensitive about it and never liked that stuff about guys or gals being supposed to enjoy this or that.

[jaylat]

I object to the term "middle-aged" to refer to the "couple from New Jersey". Why is it so important that the couple is "middle-aged", and why is that the first (and only) thing we hear about them? This is a really ugly form of ageism rearing it's head.

Frankly, as an older person myself I'm fed up with the non-stop focus on age and the use of loaded terms such as "middle-aged" to marginalize people.

[Mbast1]

Always worth a reminder that someone's personal response to experiencing racism, sexism - basically growing up on the wrong end of a systemic social power structure - is not subject to others' approval

Good point, but I doubt it will change the people who are benefiting from things "as they are".