What is a 'microaggression'?

[KarenC]

What you are thinking of as 'leading the conversation' is a real thing (who talks more, who is most expressive) but it's not what I'm trying to talk about as far as who has social power in the conversation. Social power in conversation is about who is the most respected member -- who decides if s conversation starts, what it's about, what volume and speed are appropriate, when it's over, and *especially* who has the freedom to ask initiate asking meaningful questions (not just to reciprocate questions).

 

You may be surprised to know that not everyone experiences all those things in all their conversations -- nor do they even expect it.

Are you saying that because I am white, I have the social power?  Because I am not feeling the power.

 

Usually I am just trying to think of something to say or standing awkwardly watching other people.

[Renai]

Which part sounds made up? The argument, or the fact that "black people like watermelon!" is a well-established racist trope?

 

And it sounds so stupid, doesn't it? Yeah, black people, they like watermelon, oooh, how awful. But "watermelon" is generally used as a proxy for other racist sentiments - black people steal watermelon, because, you know, they're all criminal (it's their culture not their race). Black people are so simple-minded, all it takes to make them happy is some watermelon and fried chicken, like children or animals, ruled by their base impulses instead of their brains. The White House must be a disaster by now, all those chicken bones and watermelon rinds all over the floor (because black people are so lazy and filthy, amirite? And too stupid to eat healthy foods, btw.)

 

And what should be ridiculous is really very ugly and toxic.

 

So if that anecdote happened, here's the thing. That person goes through life, and they don't know if the reason they didn't get the job is their race. They don't know if the reason they're being followed at the store is their race. They don't know if they got pulled over because of their race. They might suspect, and they can be reasonably certain that they're getting rejected more and followed more and pulled over more because of their race, but they can never pinpoint if this specific incident is racism or not. And when handed that watermelon, they don't know that this other person is not familiar with that trope, and they certainly don't know what the intentions are. If it's been a stressful week, it can be easy to get fed up over a small maybe-racism maybe-not incident.

I must live in a cave, because I'm black and have never heard watermelon being used as an insult against blacks. If someone asked if I wanted some, I'd say sure, and share with my Mexican husband.

[flyingiguana]

I asked someone once where they had gone to high school.  He got offended.  "Where do you think I'm from?" he kept demanding out of me.

 

Turns out his parents were from Paraguay and he was offended that I was (apparently) asking about his ethnicity.  Or maybe whether he belonged in this country.  Or.... something.  I'm not sure.

 

I've since realized that he took offense because he was from the suburbs.  A suburb that is pretty white.  He had no idea that from MY perspective -- living in the racially diverse city -- if I wondered which high school someone went to, I was really wondering which high school they went to.  (I was about to launch into questions about that school's math program.  Seems to be a hobby of mine)

 

But from his perspective, growing up in a very white suburb, I was asking a totally different question.

 

So I do understand the offense he took, given his background.  But I also know that he's going to have to get over that reaction because he's going to run into a lot more people in the world that didn't come from the sort of suburb he came from.  They just aren't going to understand his reaction when they ask a simple question about what college he went to or what city he's from.  Nor do I really think it was my responsibility to apologize for my supposed rudeness.  We just didn't understand each other.  At the time.  My guess is that he learned something from my confusion at his reaction, just as I learned something from his reaction.

[flyingiguana]

I must live in a cave, because I'm black and have never heard watermelon being used as an insult against blacks. If someone asked if I wanted some, I'd say sure, and share with my Mexican husband.

 

The further south I've gone in the US, the more of these sorts of jokes I've heard.  There's kind of a gradient as well.  In the middle area, the jokes get told as a kind of sociological point of interest -- with the explanation that "some people I know" tell these sorts of jokes.  And the joke is then told in a whisper.  The person we're supposed to laugh at, I think, is the sort of racist that would tell the joke.  Ostensibly.  But the joke itself is still there, hanging in the air.

 

But... I'm white.  My guess is that these jokes don't get told if there's anyone in the room who looks like a character in the joke. 

 

[flyingiguana]

I also want to clarify my earlier comment about accusing people of committing microagressions being a way to shut people up:

 

Recently, the people who have done this to me (ie, using the word microagression and telling me to check my privelege and several other buzzwords/phrases) considered themselves to be part of MY ethnic, gender, class etc.  They were using this accusation as a way of telling me to shut up. 

 

Several of these people also have a grand time putting down people of other classes/religions/genders etc in fairly rude ways.  They call it politics.  I call it basic incivility.  Even when I agree with their ideas about various political ideas I really can't get behind their way of expressing themselves.

 

There's a world of difference between a) someone spouting off something they learned in sociology class last week so as to dominate the conversation, and b ) the feelings of someone who actually does feel offended by a comment that, although unintentional, might be interpreted as unkind.

 

The latter, I think, could lead to education if it's talked through.  The former is just someone putting someone else down.

 

 

[flyingiguana]

This may be a personal pet peeve of mine, but why do girls who happen to be interested in science need to stick with their STEM passions to keep the female ranks from dwindling? Yes, gender equality and all is great, but it's not on individual girls to make sure that there are some women in STEM fields. I was an electrical engineering major for a while, and the "oh, you should keep it up because it's so good from a feminist perspective" subtext in some people's comments was rather annoying (especially if coming from females in not STEM fields... if they care so much about gender balance in STEM fields, why don't *they* major in electrical engineering rather than just tell me it's so wonderful I do "because gender equality"?).

 

Exactly.  This encouragement should be better phrased as: be sure you stay in the field if it's interesting to you and don't let detractors talk you into something that's supposedly more feminine.

 

Those of us in these fields do like to encourage other women to stay just so we won't feel like the only odd one who's still there, but I can see that at times it looks like unwanted pressure.

[Renai]

The further south I've gone in the US, the more of these sorts of jokes I've heard.  There's kind of a gradient as well.  In the middle area, the jokes get told as a kind of sociological point of interest -- with the explanation that "some people I know" tell these sorts of jokes.  And the joke is then told in a whisper.  The person we're supposed to laugh at, I think, is the sort of racist that would tell the joke.  Ostensibly.  But the joke itself is still there, hanging in the air.

 

But... I'm white.  My guess is that these jokes don't get told if there's anyone in the room who looks like a character in the joke. 

 

 

Our extended family is from Alabama and Georgia, where we've spent much time. I have heard and experienced my share of racist remarks in many places I've lived (I'm a military brat). The watermelon thing is new and lost on me.

 

But, I understand what you mean by the last comment. I get many comments about Mexicans, from people who don't know I'm married to one, and am expected to get the joke. What they get is embarrassment because I do not abide by such talk.

[Pam in CT]

re: "feeling the power," or not so much....

Re: the bolded.  Oh, I certainly did not feel as if I had power.   However, I did not feel particularly threatened either - if I had I wouldn't have rolled down the window. 

 

But you see, if I had not rolled down the window, that would have been an indication that I felt unsafe because my car was blocked by a group of black men, and that would be... yes, a microaggression.  Which would be worse:  black men blocking a middle-aged white woman from driving down their street, or the white woman refusing to open the window to talk to them?   I think most people in this thread would say my action would be worse.  But again, I had no power in the situation.   Would it make a difference if you (general you) knew that my young teen daughter was with me? ...

Yeah, and it's possible to drive oneself stark raving mad second guessing such situations, and the tension with the (also valid) countervailing Gift of Fear dynamics discussed in another of today's threads makes it yet more complicated.

 

I think though that American culture, with our mythologies about equal opportunity for all and our relentlessly individual orientation, tends to train us away from recognizing the existence of social power.  So it's healthy in dialogues like this to consider that lens from different vantage points....

 

 

I disagree.  I've been mulling over the whole teen mom issue.  I knew the social stereotypes of single teen moms on welfare.  Everyone knows the social stereotypes - oh, and I was a high school drop out in the beginning, too.  I got a lot of "young mom" comments and I was pretty sensitive about those comments.  But, looking back, most of the comments were positive.  I don't think I remember ever having anyone confront me negatively.  That's not true...now I remember I probably heard a few "babies having babies" comments said within my earshot.  But, for the most part, people talking to me were positive about my parenting and about me being back at school.  

 

I still *felt* uncomfortable.  But, you know what?  That's on me.  All those people that said encouraging things to me or even the ones who were just a little surprised, "Wow!  You're a young mom!" they weren't intending to be mean or to hurt me or to exert power over me.  

 

_____

 

It's my problem that I feel uncomfortable about it.  Those are my feelings.  I am in charge of my feelings and I can look at things logically and tell myself that no one meant anything hurtful.  Or I can let my feelings control me and I can accuse others of being horrible.

I'm rather on the old mom side myself, lol, so I cannot relate personally to this particular comment....  Here in the US at least, though, the social power balance overall favors YOUTH, even where there is simultaneously a social stigma against "too-young" parenthood, so comments along the line "you look so young to have a child that age!" are, here, a bit double-edged, with crossing lines of where the social power lies....  What Sadie called "intersectionality" upthread.  

 

(I dunno  if you saw, a while back, that thread on the phrase "trophy wife."  Similarly crossing lines of social power/backhanded kinda-sorta compliment/or not, depending on how you see the power.  Good looks are good; marital expiration date and gold digger not so much.)

 

____

 

On the second bit: if someone inadvertently whacked you in the face with their umbrella, would you consider their "intentions" relevant to your own discomfort?  Not that you would, in the umbrella scenario, "accuse" the person of being "horrible."  It was (hypothetically) an accident.  Still, you got whacked in the face.  Does the lack of intention mean it didn't happen, or wasn't real, or didn't hurt? Even if you think "logically" about the intent?

 

 

 

re: my husband's unintentionally backing his car into the babysitter's (or umbrella-whacking for that matter); and Drama Queens and Boys Who Cried Wolf:

Um...no.  I don't think this is a valid analogy.  I have certainly had my feelings hurt when someone didn't mean it.  I tell myself that my feelings aren't accurate - my car didn't really get backed into, I just felt like it did.  I have to do this with one of my kids all the time.  He's overly dramatic - everyone is always out to get him.  He can spin himself up into a terrible tizzy and the other person has absolutely no clue what happened.  It's my kid's issue - he needs to learn not to react to his feelings.  He needs to learn to be reasonable.  He needs to think about what the other person was actually saying and figure out what the person reasonably meant.  He thinks his car is being backed into every time he turns around, but it's not.  And he's going to be a lot happier when he figures out that out.

:lol: re: "He thinks his car is being backed into every time he turns around, but it's not."

 

 

This is I think the essence of the issue.  Not that it's *so* hard, for me or my husband or you to wrap our minds around the idea that harm can be real even if the person doing the harm didn't mean it -- the idea of "accidental harm" is easy enough for most people to recognize if it's the babysitter's car or the face whacked by the umbrella or a window smashed by a kid's baseball -- but rather, that since we can's see the harm wreaked by words, it's much easier to dismiss the harm as not "real."  As oversensitivity, or Drama Queen, or looking for grievances.

 

Yet -- ironically -- when I inadvertently say something that the recipient tells me is hurtful, I can't see into his heart to gauge whether his response is "real" any more than he can see into mine to gauge my "intent."   Why is my understanding more accurate than his?

 

And although the idea of microaggression is a little uncomfortable to hold, I don't think the use of the term means anyone is being  "accused" of being "horrible."  It's a new term, and I can see the its incorporation of the root "aggress" may be unfortunate as it moves past the sociological field, and maybe we'll eventually settle on some other word to get to this idea of social power.  

 

But it's just a word... and ironically, for it to evoke that kind of defensiveness is a little drama queen-y.  (Not addressing you personally, more the general uneasiness throughout this interesting and useful thread.)

 

 

 

 

I think when we have these discussions we sometimes forget that in every conversation there are at least two people who are responsible for their own actions. If person A says something unintentionally offensive to person B, yes person B will ideally realize the intent was good and respond with good humor in a way that let's person A know that they should probably not say that again. Person A should, as soon as they realize that their words did or reasonably could cause harm or offense, apologize and do better when they know better. But if person B has had a bad day or has heard that offensive thing too many times to be gracious this time, person A should still act as I described above. And if person A is a jerk who will never change, person B should still act gracious, correcting if desired, and let it roll off their back, for the sake of their own well being. If my kid is getting offended too much, I'm going to talk to him about person B's responsibility,
but if my kid is speaking thoughtlessly, we are going to chat about person A.

 

:iagree: especially about graciousness and rolling.  It's a fine line, between trying to step up the big picture game and navigating personal encounters.

[Joanne]

I think when we have these discussions we sometimes forget that in every conversation there are at least two people who are responsible for their own actions. If person A says something unintentionally offensive to person B, yes person B will ideally realize the intent was good and respond with good humor in a way that let's person A know that they should probably not say that again. Person A should, as soon as they realize that their words did or reasonably could cause harm or offense, apologize and do better when they know better. But if person B has had a bad day or has heard that offensive thing too many times to be gracious this time, person A should still act as I described above. And if person A is a jerk who will never change, person B should still act gracious, correcting if desired, and let it roll off their back, for the sake of their own well being. If my kid is getting offended too much, I'm going to talk to him about person B's responsibility,

but if my kid is speaking thoughtlessly, we are going to chat about person A.

 

But this ignores the concept behind micro-aggression as a specific term. Microaggression identifies sociological dynamics involving stereotypes, cultural ignorance, racism. The term is specific - the thread isn't about individual conversations that might be awkward but the cumulative effect of underinformed discourse with minority populations.

[Pam in CT]

sidebar re: 11 yo girls, STEM, and encouraging encounters v discouraging/disparaging ones...

 

This may be a personal pet peeve of mine, but why do girls who happen to be interested in science need to stick with their STEM passions to keep the female ranks from dwindling? Yes, gender equality and all is great, but it's not on individual girls to make sure that there are some women in STEM fields. I was an electrical engineering major for a while, and the "oh, you should keep it up because it's so good from a feminist perspective" subtext in some people's comments was rather annoying (especially if coming from females in not STEM fields... if they care so much about gender balance in STEM fields, why don't *they* major in electrical engineering rather than just tell me it's so wonderful I do "because gender equality"?).

Gracious, yes.  No individual girl bears any kind of burden to hold up the numbers if she isn't herself passionate!  That goes wholly against agency and choice that are the essence of equality and feminism.  The context was a young snake-loving girl who'd experienced gender-specific negative encounters from peers and dismissive teachers.  It's good to see some positive encounters to balance the negative out.

 

 

Exactly.  This encouragement should be better phrased as: be sure you stay in the field if it's interesting to you and don't let detractors talk you into something that's supposedly more feminine.

 

Those of us in these fields do like to encourage other women to stay just so we won't feel like the only odd one who's still there, but I can see that at times it looks like unwanted pressure.

:iagree:

[MSNative]

On the second bit: if someone inadvertently whacked you in the face with their umbrella, would you consider their "intentions" relevant to your own discomfort? Not that you would, in the umbrella scenario, "accuse" the person of being "horrible." It was (hypothetically) an accident. Still, you got whacked in the face. Does the lack of intention mean it didn't happen, or wasn't real, or didn't hurt? Even if you think "logically" about the intent?

 

 

.

Actually the person's intent does matter to me in that situation. And I do question their intent. If someone accidentally whacks me with an umbrella, I am hurt and possibly wet. My first instinct will be to assume it was an accident. If it's an accident, I'm not going to accuse the person of secretly wanting to hurt me and being a horrible person. I'm going to assume that that person is a fallible human just like I am and that they did not intend harm. If it looks like that person was deliberately trying to hit me, I'm gonna move and possibly do something else.

(I do hope that never happens as at this point, without a crazed umbrella weildkng fiend in front of me my mind is a blank. I can't imagine I'll fare much better with that added stress. 😄)

[Pam in CT]

re: intent, harm, and inadvertent umbrella whacking:

Actually the person's intent does matter to me in that situation. And I do question their intent. If someone accidentally whacks me with an umbrella, I am hurt and possibly wet. My first instinct will be to assume it was an accident. If it's an accident, I'm not going to accuse the person of secretly wanting to hurt me and being a horrible person. I'm going to assume that that person is a fallible human just like I am and that they did not intend harm. If it looks like that person was deliberately trying to hit me, I'm gonna move and possibly do something else.
(I do hope that never happens as at this point, without a crazed umbrella weildkng fiend in front of me my mind is a blank. I can't imagine I'll fare much better with that added stress. 😄)

 

Yes.  That's what I'm struggling rather unarticulately here to get at -- for unintended physical harms, it's pretty easy for most of us to say, it was accidental.  For most of us -- whether we do it, or it is done to us, we are able to "hold" in our minds both the first fact that it hurt, and the second fact that it was accidental, without... cognitively exploding or something.

 

So if we do the whacking by accident, we are able to say -- oh, gosh, sorry about that... and carry on with our lives, hopefully watching our umbrellas a bit more carefully, without getting caught up in defensiveness that we didn't "mean" to.  Of course we didn't mean to.

 

And if we are the ones who get accidentally whacked, we are able to say -- dang, that did hurt, but I get that it was accidental... and carry on with our lives, without going off into road rage (sidewalk rage?) or something.

 

 

But when the (unintended) harm is inside the other person's head, and therefore not evidentiarily (?!) visible -- that's when it's immensely harder to set aside the over-focus on our own intent.  As if our intent somehow makes the other person's harm vanish, or be inaccurate.  When clearly it's not, in the case of the umbrella-whacking.

 

 

[Xahm]

But this ignores the concept behind micro-aggression as a specific term. Microaggression identifies sociological dynamics involving stereotypes, cultural ignorance, racism. The term is specific - the thread isn't about individual conversations that might be awkward but the cumulative effect of underinformed discourse with minority populations.

I get that micraggression is a specific technical term, but I think this thread has been focusing on individual conversations, which is what I was talking about here.

[SKL]

On the second bit: if someone inadvertently whacked you in the face with their umbrella, would you consider their "intentions" relevant to your own discomfort?  Not that you would, in the umbrella scenario, "accuse" the person of being "horrible."  It was (hypothetically) an accident.  Still, you got whacked in the face.  Does the lack of intention mean it didn't happen, or wasn't real, or didn't hurt? Even if you think "logically" about the intent?

 

It really depends though.  Were the words insulting on their face?  I mean, if you told a person of a different race "I'm surprised you're so smart, I thought all you people were basically illiterate," that is an actual slap in the face.  (A foreign student did this to me, not meaning any harm, but really?)

 

An in-between example:  calling a cute, agile preschooler a "little monkey."  It's a term of endearment where I come from, but some cultures consider it extremely racist.  IMO it's best to avoid colloquialisms like that when you're with people from other cultures, just in case.

 

But if it's just a generic sentence on its face?  Like "would you like some watermelon?"  The question here IMO is whose responsibility it is to get educated.  On the one side, to realize that offering this yummy and popular fruit has strange connotations in some places.  On the other side, to realize that this yummy and popular fruit is really just a fruit in most places.  It seems to me that the world is not made better by taking everything off limits if somebody somewhere might have used it as an insult.  Therefore I think it is better for the "injured" person to get educated about the real meaning of "would you like some watermelon" in most people's minds.

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by SKL

[Sarah CB]

But this ignores the concept behind micro-aggression as a specific term. Microaggression identifies sociological dynamics involving stereotypes, cultural ignorance, racism. The term is specific - the thread isn't about individual conversations that might be awkward but the cumulative effect of underinformed discourse with minority populations.

 

I guess that's what I find offensive about the term.  If someone thinks something I've said is a micro aggression, that means that person has identified me as either culturally ignorant or racist - basically.  

 

What if I'm white but I'm not culturally ignorant or racist?  What if the first question I ask anyone I meet is, "Where do you come from?"  And then I get accused of micro aggression?  

 

I get what micro aggression is - I just think that some of the time it may not actually be micro aggression at all.  

 

I've had a chance to chat with a mom from Nigeria a number of times at different school events and I really enjoyed getting to know her.  I didn't think twice about our conversation until this stupid thread, and now I find myself trying to remember what we talked about and whether anything I said might have been considered a micro aggression.    

[Sarah CB]

 

 

____

 

On the second bit: if someone inadvertently whacked you in the face with their umbrella, would you consider their "intentions" relevant to your own discomfort?  Not that you would, in the umbrella scenario, "accuse" the person of being "horrible."  It was (hypothetically) an accident.  Still, you got whacked in the face.  Does the lack of intention mean it didn't happen, or wasn't real, or didn't hurt? Even if you think "logically" about the intent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess the intent would dictate how I would address it.  If I got whacked in the face and it was clearly an accident, the Canadian in me would probably apologize for being in the way.  Seriously.  I imagine we'd both be apologizing and I'd be telling the person it didn't hurt (even if it did) and that would be it.  I apologize every time someone steps on my foot or bumps into me.  

 

Sure, it would still hurt, but the sting would be a lot different than if it was intentional.  But, more importantly, I wouldn't suggest that the person whacking me must have some kind of belief in stereotypes or some inherent racists ideas or be culturally illiterate.

 

[SKL]

There is an Indian family who does gymnastics with my kids.  I was afraid to say anything to the mom for a while (and she was very quiet), but one day I caught her reading a prayer book in her home state language.  I said, "is that Telugu?"  She was thrilled that I knew something about her background, and we chatted happily after that.  She said her family basically didn't have a social life since they don't know many Indians.  I told her about some Indian / multicultural events I knew were coming up.  So ... microaggression or not?

[Catwoman]

There is an Indian family who does gymnastics with my kids. I was afraid to say anything to the mom for a while (and she was very quiet), but one day I caught her reading a prayer book in her home state language. I said, "is that Telugu?" She was thrilled that I knew something about her background, and we chatted happily after that. She said her family basically didn't have a social life since they don't know many Indians. I told her about some Indian / multicultural events I knew were coming up. So ... microaggression or not?

I would just think you were being nice. I'm sure she felt the same way. :)

 

I think a big thing about microaggression is that it's not necessarily about what you say to a person; it's how they interpret your words and whether or not they choose to be offended by those words.

 

That's what makes this topic so difficult. One person's microaggression is another person's everyday casual conversation -- and it can happen even if both parties are from similar backgrounds. I may assume that the person who made an awkward comment didn't mean anything negative by it so it wouldn't bother me a bit, while the person standing next to me could be horribly insulted by that exact same comment.

 

I don't think it's beneficial to feel we have to measure every word we say to everyone we meet. I think if we try our best to use both common courtesy and common sense, yet someone still gets offended and calls us out for microaggression, we should let them know it was unintentional and say we're sorry, and move on with our day without dwelling on it. Obviously, if this sort of thing happens a lot, it is probably time to think about why we seem to be offending so many people and actively work on not continuing those offensive behaviors, but in general, I think it is a bad idea to worry too much about microaggression before we talk to new people or have a friendly chat with a casual acquaintance, because ultimately I can see that doing a lot more harm than good if we start hesitating to talk to other people because we are worried we might say something wrong.

[Pam in CT]

re: getting (unintentionally) whacked in the face with umbrella:

I guess the intent would dictate how I would address it.  If I got whacked in the face and it was clearly an accident, the Canadian in me would probably apologize for being in the way.  Seriously.  I imagine we'd both be apologizing and I'd be telling the person it didn't hurt (even if it did) and that would be it.  I apologize every time someone steps on my foot or bumps into me.  

 

______

 

 

Sure, it would still hurt, but the sting would be a lot different than if it was intentional.  But, more importantly, I wouldn't suggest that the person whacking me must have some kind of belief in stereotypes or some inherent racists ideas or be culturally illiterate.

:lol: Yeah, I expect that is the Canadian in you... that's not how it typically goes down in New York.

 

_______

 

Your insight about the sharpness of the sting, though, I think is pretty common: when both sides of a small umbrella-sized encounter recognize a) the reality of the encounter and b) the inadvertent nature of the encounter, it is relatively easy for the hurt-er to say, oops, sorry... and for the hurt-ed to say, no big deal.

 

One issue with these long-occurring but newly-labeled "microaggressions" is that they are not visible like umbrella whacking.  So the hurt-er may genuinely be unaware that s/he has metaphorically umbrella-whacked... and so does not recognize the reality of the encounter.  If it is "called out" real-time and labeled as "microaggression" in the moment (which, again, I have never witnessed personally), well, that's kind of like the lady in the grocery store line deciding to give my loud kid a lecture on manners... she might well be right, but she's unlikely to be effective, KWIM?  It's much more likely, in the moment,  to evoke a dig-in-my-heels defensive response.  In the moment "calling out" is rarely helpful.

 

But, whether or not the metaphorical whack-er is aware that the encounter happened, or whether or not the specific incident is "called out" and labeled in the moment, the metaphorically whacked person is still whacked.  The encounter still happened.  It is still real.  And because another issue with these types of encounters is their systemic nature, they happen over.and.over.and.over to the people to whom they happen as is hilariously illustrated in some of the upthread videos.... and as Laurie4b stated nicely about 4,502 posts upthread, maybe the whacked one lets the first 230 go gracefully, but sorta snaps on the 231st, when maybe it happens to her kid instead of herself.  

 

And so the metaphorically whacked person says, you whacked me; it hurt.  Very likely this feedback will be easier for the whack-er to hear if she says it kindly, politely, and frames it in a context of you probably didn't mean to.  Very likely it'll be harder to hear if it's bristling with New York irritation, or if she uses that m-word that gets under your skin....  But however she says it, the encounter still happened.  It is still real.

 

Which leaves the metaphorical whack-er with a choice -- to hunker down and protest BUT I DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY as if to suggest the encounter somehow therefore isn't real (which would be absurd in the case of my husband backing up the car, and nearly equally so in the case of the umbrella), or to say, oops, sorry... and try to do a little bit better going forward.

 

 

I guess that's what I find offensive about the term.  If someone thinks something I've said is a micro aggression, that means that person has identified me as either culturally ignorant or racist - basically.  

 

What if I'm white but I'm not culturally ignorant or racist?  What if the first question I ask anyone I meet is, "Where do you come from?"  And then I get accused of micro aggression?  

 

I get what micro aggression is - I just think that some of the time it may not actually be micro aggression at all.  

 

I've had a chance to chat with a mom from Nigeria a number of times at different school events and I really enjoyed getting to know her.  I didn't think twice about our conversation until this stupid thread, and now I find myself trying to remember what we talked about and whether anything I said might have been considered a micro aggression.    

I don't, myself, feel the bolded.  I feel like, when I was younger, I did the best I could based on what I knew and understood at the time... and as I've gotten older, I've learned and come to understand a bit more, and so I do a bit better.  

 

Hopefully I'll carry on in that general trajectory, KWIM?

 

 

 

It really depends though.  Were the words insulting on their face?  I mean, if you told a person of a different race "I'm surprised you're so smart, I thought all you people were basically illiterate," that is an actual slap in the face.  (A foreign student did this to me, not meaning any harm, but really?)

 

An in-between example:  calling a cute, agile preschooler a "little monkey."  It's a term of endearment where I come from, but some cultures consider it extremely racist.  IMO it's best to avoid colloquialisms like that when you're with people from other cultures, just in case.

 

But if it's just a generic sentence on its face?  Like "would you like some watermelon?"  The question here IMO is whose responsibility it is to get educated.  On the one side, to realize that offering this yummy and popular fruit has strange connotations in some places.  On the other side, to realize that this yummy and popular fruit is really just a fruit in most places.  It seems to me that the world is not made better by taking everything off limits if somebody somewhere might have used it as an insult.  Therefore I think it is better for the "injured" person to get educated about the real meaning of "would you like some watermelon" in most people's minds.
 

 

There are of course gradations of verbal encounters.  And of course none of us can mind-read, either one another's "hurt" or one another's "intent."

 

I guess for me the issue is, the only person I'm able to educate is... myself.  (And to a lesser extent my kids.)  That's all *I* can do.  So that's where I focus my efforts.

 

[Joanne]

I get that micraggression is a specific technical term, but I think this thread has been focusing on individual conversations, which is what I was talking about here.

 

 

I get that you were talking about individual conversations. That's why I posted - the "issue" is that people are obscuring micro-aggression by reducing the issue to individual conversations. The OP and thread were **about** microaggressions. To respond (not just you, but many) with content relating to individual conversations misses the point.

 

The baseline productive response to microaggression is to say some form of: "Oh! I didn't mean it that way, but now that you mention it, I can understand why it would be a microaggression"  And then think about how people - particularly in racial and ethnic context - might experience that discourse.

 

But, instead, we got pages of some form of: "Arg! I can't say anything anymore. Too many people are looking for reasons to be offended. I am tired of walking on eggshells. Political correctness has made normal human interaction difficult. I guess I won't talk to anyone, ever, because I can't choose the exact right words every time."

[Joanne]

I guess that's what I find offensive about the term.  If someone thinks something I've said is a micro aggression, that means that person has identified me as either culturally ignorant or racist - basically.  

 

What if I'm white but I'm not culturally ignorant or racist?  What if the first question I ask anyone I meet is, "Where do you come from?"  And then I get accused of micro aggression?  

 

I get what micro aggression is - I just think that some of the time it may not actually be micro aggression at all.  

 

I've had a chance to chat with a mom from Nigeria a number of times at different school events and I really enjoyed getting to know her.  I didn't think twice about our conversation until this stupid thread, and now I find myself trying to remember what we talked about and whether anything I said might have been considered a micro aggression.    

 

 

If your avatar is you, I think you are a white female, and I am going to assume you are in and from a Western country.

 

Maybe being more open that your lived experience doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it.

 

It's not a liberal WTM thing. It's an dynamic far beyond here.

[Dmmetler]

I think another part of the dynamic is that often the person who is experiencing a statement as aggressive doesn't feel they can say anything most of the time. So, when the line has been crossed by someone they feel they can respond to (or when they're talking about it with friends, or on a blog or something like that), it gets a disproportionate response. Kind of the way kids misbehave more at home than in less familiar situations, and a tough day out leads to a tough day at home.

 

Which is one reason to understand why such innocently meant statements can be taken badly. It's not so much what you said-it's that earlier in the day, or week, or month, or year, it's been said much less innocently in situations where all you can do is smile, nod and let it roll off your back.

 

In my DD's snake example, I've seen her live through a week at camp with girls (and a counselor) who were openly hostile and dismissive of her and who would actively do things like tell her that they killed every snake they saw-only to, a week later, get very upset and burst into tears when her grandfather didn't want to hold her pet snake. Not fair to Grandpa to get that response, and he truly didn't intend any harm to her whatsoever, but she'd dealt with so much rejection that she just couldn't handle it when she otherwise felt safe.

[Tanaqui]

I've seen her live through a week at camp with girls (and a counselor) who were openly hostile and dismissive of her and who would actively do things like tell her that they killed every snake they saw-only to

 

What a horrible thing to do to a kid. And from an adult, no less!

 

Re: watermelons - Plenty of people here have said they're not familiar with it. I believe all of you. It is a thing, though, and not just in the past (which is where I first became familiar with it, in older books and television). I've heard it referenced by black friends in what looked like an in-group, joking way, and I've encountered it in the wild from bigots. I was surprised to see it in the wild, actually. I really thought that even the bigots didn't use that particular sort of comment anymore. But apparently, they do.

[Meriwether]

If your avatar is you, I think you are a white female, and I am going to assume you are in and from a Western country.

 

Maybe being more open that your lived experience doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it.

 

It's not a liberal WTM thing. It's an dynamic far beyond here.

 

*Everyone's* life experiences should be part of this discussion. When I was a child, my family moved to a small town. I, as a white female, was marginalized. I was called the new kid for years. My brother, who was six feet tall and could dunk the ball, sat on the bench because my dad was neither friends with the coach nor on the school board. We became friendly with a Japanese lady in town. She had moved to town with her two half Japanese sons just before we did. She was amazed that we were treated the same way her boys were because she assumed it was because of race.

[Sarah CB]

If your avatar is you, I think you are a white female, and I am going to assume you are in and from a Western country.

 

Maybe being more open that your lived experience doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it.

 

It's not a liberal WTM thing. It's an dynamic far beyond here.

 

If micro-aggression is something one feels, then ok.  Obviously I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and would apologize if I did so inadvertently.  

 

However, you've identified micro-aggression as being deep seated within the person who is delivering the micro-aggression.  So, if it's a micro-aggression because I'm somehow inherently racist, or I've said something because of certain stereotypes or I'm culturally ignorant that's a much different story.  And if I did that then - wow, am I ever sorry.  

 

However, if I ask everyone I meet, "Where are you from?" then obviously the times I ask someone of a different ethnicity that question I'm not asking it because I'm acting out a micro-aggression.  Right?  

 

Unless it can be considered a micro-aggression simply because the person hearing it feels it is a micro-aggression.  In which case, again, fine, I'm sorry for hurting feelings, but please don't link it to racist underpinnings when I ask that question regardless of a person's ethnicity.

 

That's where I get tangled up.  

[SKL]

If micro-aggression is something one feels, then ok.  Obviously I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and would apologize if I did so inadvertently.  

 

However, you've identified micro-aggression as being deep seated within the person who is delivering the micro-aggression.  So, if it's a micro-aggression because I'm somehow inherently racist, or I've said something because of certain stereotypes or I'm culturally ignorant that's a much different story.  And if I did that then - wow, am I ever sorry.  

 

However, if I ask everyone I meet, "Where are you from?" then obviously the times I ask someone of a different ethnicity that question I'm not asking it because I'm acting out a micro-aggression.  Right?  

 

Unless it can be considered a micro-aggression simply because the person hearing it feels it is a micro-aggression.  In which case, again, fine, I'm sorry for hurting feelings, but please don't link it to racist underpinnings when I ask that question regardless of a person's ethnicity.

 

That's where I get tangled up.  

 

It does seem that some things are a "microaggression" or not depending on whom you say them to.

 

[Joules]

If your avatar is you, I think you are a white female, and I am going to assume you are in and from a Western country.

 

Maybe being more open that your lived experience doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it.

 

It's not a liberal WTM thing. It's an dynamic far beyond here.

 

 

If micro-aggression is something one feels, then ok.  Obviously I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and would apologize if I did so inadvertently.  

 

However, you've identified micro-aggression as being deep seated within the person who is delivering the micro-aggression.  So, if it's a micro-aggression because I'm somehow inherently racist, or I've said something because of certain stereotypes or I'm culturally ignorant that's a much different story.  And if I did that then - wow, am I ever sorry.  

 

However, if I ask everyone I meet, "Where are you from?" then obviously the times I ask someone of a different ethnicity that question I'm not asking it because I'm acting out a micro-aggression.  Right?  

 

Unless it can be considered a micro-aggression simply because the person hearing it feels it is a micro-aggression.  In which case, again, fine, I'm sorry for hurting feelings, but please don't link it to racist underpinnings when I ask that question regardless of a person's ethnicity.

 

That's where I get tangled up.  

 

 

I still think it is the word itself that causes the problem (though it is a defined by its field of study so unlikely to change).  Joanne says "doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it." 

But I (and I think some others) think of aggression as being defined by intent.  If I fall into you and knock you over, it's different than if I push you over.  One is intentional.  I would apologize for either case, but I might be a bit upset if someone suggested my falling over is "aggressive."   Maybe "careless" or "clumsy," but "aggressive" would seem over-the-top.  The suggestion that the person I knocked over gets to decide my intent seems wrong.  And our word "aggressive" seems to involve intent.

 

From Joanne's description the term microaggression does not involve intent.  One commits a microaggression even if there is no intent. Microaggresion is defined strictly by how the person experiencing it perceives it.

 

So we have the feel of a word we know, "aggression," but a new term that means the opposite. 

[SKL]

 

I still think it is the word itself that causes the problem (though it is a defined by its field of study so unlikely to change).  Joanne says "doesn't earn you the right to evaluate microaggressions for the populations who do experience it." 

But I (and I think some others) think of aggression as being defined by intent.  If I fall into you and knock you over, it's different than if I push you over.  One is intentional.  I would apologize for either case, but I might be a bit upset if someone suggested my falling over is "aggressive."   Maybe "careless" or "clumsy," but "aggressive" would seem over-the-top.  The suggestion that the person I knocked over gets to decide my intent seems wrong.  And our word "aggressive" seems to involve intent.

 

From Joanne's description the term microaggression does not involve intent.  One commits a microaggression even if there is no intent. Microaggresion is defined strictly by how the person experiencing it perceives it.

 

So we have the feel of a word we know, "aggression," but a new term that means the opposite. 

 

 

I agree that the word "aggression" implies intent.

 

I can think of many examples of "microaggressions" that are either intentional or at least obnoxious on their face.  Either you knew it wasn't nice, or you need to be educated right now.  Example:  "how many different fathers do your kids have?"

 

I think we'd have to ask the person who coined "microaggression" whether it was meant to include unintentional missteps that are not obvious to anyone with a working brain.  That's not to say some sensitivity education isn't a bad idea, but labeling friendly chitchat with the word "aggression" seems unlikely to foster relationships.

 

[SKL]

I think sometimes we are so eager to label a "thing" with a word - so we can talk about it as a "thing" - that we forget that labels can be really divisive.

[Joules]

I agree that the word "aggression" implies intent.

 

I can think of many examples of "microaggressions" that are either intentional or at least obnoxious on their face.  Either you knew it wasn't nice, or you need to be educated right now.  Example:  "how many different fathers do your kids have?"

 

 

 

Lots of the microaggression examples I've seen are just plain rude or obnoxious.  I guess that is the point. It's obvious for the things that everyone recognizes and agrees on. I'm guessing microaggresion was coined for those more subtle things that not obvious.

 

So before, I didn't see "Where are you from?" as rude.  But now I can see if you look different and are asked that four or five times a day, it makes you feel unwelcome (even if you are still in your home state.)  It might give your kids a weird feeling that they don't belong (and to that parent it is a microaggresion even if I am well meaning.)

 

It's obvious to me that "Where are you REALLY from?" is pretty rude, but to someone who is just trying to get at country of origin, it may seem an honest clarification (though still a microaggression as that is defined by the recipient.)

 

And, of course, either of the above could be used intentionally to make someone feel unwelcome.

[Joules]

I think sometimes we are so eager to label a "thing" with a word - so we can talk about it as a "thing" - that we forget that labels can be really divisive.

 

I think labeling things is important to make people aware of them.  We do need to discuss these important issues.  I just think in this case the word chosen was unfortunate.  It implies there is always ill-intent, even when there is none.

[Catwoman]

I think sometimes we are so eager to label a "thing" with a word - so we can talk about it as a "thing" - that we forget that labels can be really divisive.

Yes, and I also think that if people focus on microaggression so much that they feel they have to weigh every word that comes out of their mouths, they may choose to avoid situations where they are meeting new/different people for fear that they might inadvertently make a comment that might be perceived as a microaggression.

 

In that case, it would seem to me that the end result of focusing on microaggression might very well be that instead of promoting awareness, unity, and acceptance, it may end up that some people will decide to only speak with people they feel are similar to themselves and avoid getting to know people who appear to be different from them in some way, and I think that would be incredibly unfortunate.

 

I would much prefer to have someone strike up a friendly conversation with me and maybe make a little faux pas here and there, than to have that person ignore me or be wary of speaking to me because they wanted to be sure they didn't accidentally offend me. I like meeting new people. I try to say the right things, but I'm sure I mess up sometimes, and I hope people take my words in the friendly spirit in which they were intended rather than microanalyze them to look for potential microaggressions.

[Joules]

 

An in-between example:  calling a cute, agile preschooler a "little monkey."  It's a term of endearment where I come from, but some cultures consider it extremely racist.  IMO it's best to avoid colloquialisms like that when you're with people from other cultures, just in case.

 

 

This is (hopefully) my biggest faux pas.  Kids on playgrounds have always been little monkeys to me.  Just because of the way they climb.  A while back a councilman, mayor, or something was in hot water for using the term to refer to kids on the playground, and it was the first I'd heard of it.  All those years and no one told me that I was offending half the people on the playground every time I hollered "Come on, little monkeys!"

 

I'm very careful now, of course.  It worked out for ds who was getting a little old to be referred to as "baby monkey" every morning anyway. :)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Joules

[swellmomma]

You know, I've been asked many, many times where I'm from originally.  I almost think it's a Canadian thing - except for Aboriginals, all of us originally came from somewhere else.  It annoys me, because I'm not Scottish or British.  But, I've never thought of it as a micro-aggression and I've certainly heard it enough times and been in enough conversations where a bunch of white people who are second and third and fourth generation Canadian are talking about where they're from that I would *never* even consider that asking someone that would be considered offensive.  Tiring, maybe.  I tell people I'm Canadian and then I get the - yeah, but what else are you?  Just Canadian, thanks.

I was thinking the same thing.  THat gets asked so much here in Canada no one thinks much of it.  Usually it is they want to know what your hometown is, it might be asked if your family is from here, but the idea is the same.  Where were you born and raised.  and then comes the further probe of what your ancestory is. In these parts they are checking if you are ukrainian or something else, as it was a predominately ukrainian settlement. We have a ton of foreign workers here too and it is nothing to ask where they are from.  And then into discussion about what life is like there, what their home town was like, the family the left behind etc.  It is a conversation starter to learn more about the person not an insult.  Maybe it will be one of those things where we say "only in Canada" ya know. 

[Pam in CT]

re: "walking on eggshells..."

Yes, and I also think that if people focus on microaggression so much that they feel they have to weigh every word that comes out of their mouths, they may choose to avoid situations where they are meeting new/different people for fear that they might inadvertently make a comment that might be perceived as a microaggression.

In that case, it would seem to me that the end result of focusing on microaggression might very well be that instead of promoting awareness, unity, and acceptance, it may end up that some people will decide to only speak with people they feel are similar to themselves and avoid getting to know people who appear to be different from them in some way, and I think that would be incredibly unfortunate.

 

________

I would much prefer to have someone strike up a friendly conversation with me and maybe make a little faux pas here and there, than to have that person ignore me or be wary of speaking to me because they wanted to be sure they didn't accidentally offend me. I like meeting new people. I try to say the right things, but I'm sure I mess up sometimes, and I hope people take my words in the friendly spirit in which they were intended rather than microanalyze them to look for potential microaggressions.

 

I agree that it would be a shame, if we let such concerns inhibit contact and deep connections across racial and other structural divides.  I think in the US at this point, we're really erring more in the opposite direction, though....  Where the backlash against constructs like "PC" and "privilege" and, more recently, "microaggression" is far more evident than threads like this one on what such dynamics mean...

 

________

 

To the second... absolutely... far better to try and sometimes wobble, than not to try, right?

 

 

 

[Sarah CB]

I was thinking the same thing.  THat gets asked so much here in Canada no one thinks much of it.  Usually it is they want to know what your hometown is, it might be asked if your family is from here, but the idea is the same.  Where were you born and raised.  and then comes the further probe of what your ancestory is. In these parts they are checking if you are ukrainian or something else, as it was a predominately ukrainian settlement. We have a ton of foreign workers here too and it is nothing to ask where they are from.  And then into discussion about what life is like there, what their home town was like, the family the left behind etc.  It is a conversation starter to learn more about the person not an insult.  Maybe it will be one of those things where we say "only in Canada" ya know. 

 

Something I keep getting asked in Newfoundland is, "How long are you here?"  I know people don't mean it rudely - implying that they don't want me to stay or that I should go back to where I came from, but it's still a little off-putting.  I haven't lived somewhere where this is such a frequent question before.  

 

Obviously, native Newfoundlanders are not being asked this question.  The question is only for people who weren't born here, who don't have family spanning back generations.  

 

I guess it could be interpreted as a micro aggression by some people.

[swellmomma]

Something I keep getting asked in Newfoundland is, "How long are you here?"  I know people don't mean it rudely - implying that they don't want me to stay or that I should go back to where I came from, but it's still a little off-putting.  I haven't lived somewhere where this is such a frequent question before.  

 

Obviously, native Newfoundlanders are not being asked this question.  The question is only for people who weren't born here, who don't have family spanning back generations.  

 

I guess it could be interpreted as a micro aggression by some people.

I think that is likely because most that move to the maritimes end up moving back to their home province sooner rather than later due to the lack of job opportunities etc.  Obviously not everyone leaves again after moving there but it is common enough that the assumption is there.

[Sarah CB]

I think that is likely because most that move to the maritimes end up moving back to their home province sooner rather than later due to the lack of job opportunities etc.  Obviously not everyone leaves again after moving there but it is common enough that the assumption is there.

 

Oh, I know.  A lot of people who move here are in the oil industry and are often here only for a set amount of time, so they know exactly how long they'll be here.  We're rare in that we're here permanently - or at least as long as dh is in this job.  But, in terms of one of those small-talk questions I think "How long are you here for?" has the potential to be taken in a negative way.  

[swellmomma]

Oh, I know.  A lot of people who move here are in the oil industry and are often here only for a set amount of time, so they know exactly how long they'll be here.  We're rare in that we're here permanently - or at least as long as dh is in this job.  But, in terms of one of those small-talk questions I think "How long are you here for?" has the potential to be taken in a negative way.  

Oh definitely.  And I can see someone who is not used to that to feel there is a negative intent to it.  "Where ya from?" followed by "how long are you here for?" could very well come across to some as you don't belong, go the heck back to where you came from. 

 

And a newfie is just thinking "I wanna know if you'll be 'round long enough to come to the next party and share this bottle of screech"