S/O How do we change bigotry on an individual level

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Again, I was legally blind.  I could never see the chalkboard since my first day of KG at age 4.

My mom had too many kids to afford to be a SAHM, and it was just as well since she wasn't wired to spend 24/7 on the home.  Yes we probably could have gotten relief had my mom chosen not to work, but like Quill said, it wasn't in our culture to choose that when there was another way.

And no, I'm not annoyed when kids get health care, but my mom had to make payments for 12 years on the bill for my brother's birth.  We only went to the doctor if it was absolutely necessary.  Which is fine, but I can understand why someone would feel some unfairness about the fact that if you don't work, you can have these foo foo things called "well visits" as well as going in every time a kid has a runny nose, but if you are working class, forget it.

To the bolded, it sounds to me like she had too many kids to be a working mom!  Not trying to pick on your family SKL, and I get that different people have different cultures and temperament that make it distasteful to stay at home....but the fact is if her staying at home could have made it possible for her legally blind child to receive glasses then THAT might have been the wiser choice.  

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

To the bolded, it sounds to me like she had too many kids to be a working mom!  Not trying to pick on your family SKL, and I get that different people have different cultures and temperament that make it distasteful to stay at home....but the fact is if her staying at home could have made it possible for her legally blind child to receive glasses then THAT might have been the wiser choice.  

Well in their defense, my parents probably didn't realize quite how bad my eyes were until I got the actual glasses and they saw how strong they were.  Also 2 of my close siblings had bigger problems, i.e. amblyopia and strabismus, requiring surgery and other treatments.

[scholastica]

5 hours ago, HeighHo said:

I guess y'all havent looked at the weather forecast today.  Its no joke for kids to be out in 20 F weather walking two miles home in a thin hoodie, while the recipient of their parents' work is happily getting luxuries. Coat drives are going  on here now, but they haven't been passed out.   Most of these families will be losing power tonight and have no alternative heat source or extra gas to get anywhere.  But if that is how you roll, that's how you roll.  I now understand why you asked the original question.  

Being the parent of children who seem to take pride in ignoring my recommendation to wear a coat, I wouldn't always assume the kid walking down the street doesn't have one, either. If I knew the kid and they didn't have one, I'd probably see about helping them get one.

[Pam in CT]

32 minutes ago, scholastica said:

Being the parent of children who seem to take pride in ignoring my recommendation to wear a coat, I wouldn't always assume the kid walking down the street doesn't have one, either. If I knew the kid and they didn't have one, I'd probably see about helping them get one.

wait, that's MY kid --

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Again, I was legally blind.  I could never see the chalkboard since my first day of KG at age 4.

My mom had too many kids to afford to be a SAHM, and it was just as well since she wasn't wired to spend 24/7 on the home.  Yes we probably could have gotten relief had my mom chosen not to work, but like Quill said, it wasn't in our culture to choose that when there was another way.

And no, I'm not annoyed when kids get health care, but my mom had to make payments for 12 years on the bill for my brother's birth.  We only went to the doctor if it was absolutely necessary.  Which is fine, but I can understand why someone would feel some unfairness about the fact that if you don't work, you can have these foo foo things called "well visits" as well as going in every time a kid has a runny nose, but if you are working class, forget it.

Yeah, we rarely went to the doctor as well. (Although as a mom, I tend to agree with that for the most part; I’m not one to hurry off to the doctor for every sniffle.) 

The expense that I sometimes feel resentful about is my kids’ college educations. In this respect, I do sometimes feel as though we are penalized for having made plans for that expense. We also own rental properties, which apparently the government and/or colleges theorize we could simply sell to put kids in college. Nice in theory, except that is what puts bread on the table...So, if we’re going to be honest here, I sometimes feel like, “well geez, if my kids had good-for-nothing parents or they had a baby unwed (for mydd), they could go to college for free or practically. But since we saved money (not that we saved a lot or enough to pay for the whole deal), we get no relief besides what one kid earned from merit.” 

Which is not to say that I don’t want it to be available to kids who have parents who didn’t save a nickle (I was one, after all), just that I do sometimes feel that it’s a penalty for planning well and having a few things working out to our good benefit over the years. 

[Arcadia]

43 minutes ago, Quill said:

The expense that I sometimes feel resentful about is my kids’ college educations. In this respect, I do sometimes feel as though we are penalized for having made plans for that expense.

 

A family friend opt to take the retrenchment benefits (which was stingy) instead of relocate out of state because of college costs. By “losing” about $100k of pretax wages, his family annual income drop to poverty level since his wife works part time. That seriously reduced the college costs for his two kids since older was in an expensive private college and younger was just accepted into the more expensive state university. Obviously if he was working he would have other benefits like 401k and employee health benefits but being able to take a few years rest from working is nice too since he has already worked non stop for thirty years by then. I don’t know if he married late but he had kids late. Most of his paycheck would have gone to his older child’s tuition.

 

[Arcadia]

7 hours ago, SKL said:

  I think it's fairly well established that even today, there is an income range where you can neither afford all the standard stuff nor get assistance.  That group of people are naturally going to be annoyed about it when they see it - regardless of skin color.

 

In my home country, they nicknamed it the middle class squeeze. My brother’s wife isn’t working because the additional income would put them into that income range. Now my niece gets subsidized healthcare (vision therapy, doctors visits), free school holiday classes and free after school classes due to being low income. The middle class there felt like they were left to struggle and don’t dare to go single income mainly because of job security. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Same here, but doesn't that imply that people who do receive benefits are worthy of negative judgment?  So it's the same thing.  The attitude that "we working folks are paying for people who don't work to have what we can't afford."

I don’t disagree. My parents were critical towards others over many things. That was one of them. 

My only point was, it did not seem to me that they resented things others had if they came by way of govt programs. 

[Guest]

On 11/14/2018 at 6:26 PM, Robin M said:

Something to think about. I watched Jada Pinkett Smith's Red Table Talk yesterday which was about racism between women of color and white women.  Do you all remember Jane Elliot, the teacher way back in the 60's who did the brown eye, green eye exercise in her classroom which was really controversial at the time.  She was on the show and it was interesting to say the least. Still processing but it was timely with your question. 

Thank you for posting that. It was thought-provoking to watch. I could understand so many things here. I very much identify with the white woman producer who was saying, “I don’t know what to do/say. I can’t even bring up race for fear that I am going to offend.” Experienced it. 

I can appreciate that there are women of color who are deeply suspicious of an attempt by a white woman to befriend them and I have felt that invisible line of no-go. 

I do wish we could all, everywhere, just be “the human race”, but there is also a non-expungeable history there. There are people of color who are just as resistent to seeing themselves as related to the white folks as there are vice versa. I’m just wondering frankly if that is not simply a step too far at present. 

Somehow Jane Elliot seems to have been embraced as The Real Deal. By all appearances, she is a white woman without an ounce of prejudice, and, more importantly, she has been accepted into communties of color. She doesn’t separate herself in any way. I just don’t know how transferrable that is to everyone else. 

[LMD]

On 11/16/2018 at 10:49 AM, scholastica said:

Being the parent of children who seem to take pride in ignoring my recommendation to wear a coat, I wouldn't always assume the kid walking down the street doesn't have one, either. If I knew the kid and they didn't have one, I'd probably see about helping them get one.

I promise, my walking barefoot kids have legion of shoes around here. Keeping them on when I turn my back is a different skill apparently...

[SKL]

Oh brother, talk about stereotypes based on sex and race (the linked article just above).  So tiresome and offensive.

Edited November 18, 2018 by SKL

[moonflower]

On 11/15/2018 at 3:51 PM, Scarlett said:

To the bolded, it sounds to me like she had too many kids to be a working mom!  Not trying to pick on your family SKL, and I get that different people have different cultures and temperament that make it distasteful to stay at home....but the fact is if her staying at home could have made it possible for her legally blind child to receive glasses then THAT might have been the wiser choice.  

 

This makes no sense to me.  I believe in staying home with the kids too, I do, but I don't see how you can tell someone they should have given up paid employment so they could get free things from the government.  If SKL's dad's income could have supported them alone, then I can see suggesting her mom stay home.  But otherwise you're saying she should have purposefully taken money from someone else.  I dunno.

[moonflower]

Re: the guardian article, I couldn't read through the whole thing as it made my eye twitch (obviously I am well right of center).

But I do get super, super annoyed at the idea that women should for some reason vote for democrats because they are women, or that they shouldn't vote for trump because he is a philanderer.

Many women I know, including in some ways myself, are single issue voters - or at least, voters who can be swayed in some circumstances but really really care about that issue.  For the liberal women I know, the issue is abortion.  It's why Kavanaugh's confirmation was crazy, it's why they vote democrat on every ticket, it's the thing that frightens them most about Trump as president.

For the conservative women I know (fine, I don't know many, separate of some on this board), the issue is abortion.  It's why they voted for Trump if they did, it's why they vote a republican ticket, it's why Trump came to Kansas after Kavanaugh got confirmed and had a rally at which people seemed quite ecstatic. 

The article frames Democrats as the party most aligned with women's interests, and asks why white women keep voting for republicans.  Well, I'd just say that I don't think Democrats are aligned with women's interests.  I don't think abortion is in women's interest.  I think women do get equal pay for equal work.  

Also, there's a clear divide between married women and single women, and that makes a lot of sense to me - married women have different concerns than single women.

 

[moonflower]

Finally, in re: the OP, which is why I finally clicked on this thread in the first place, if the idea is that your ignorant relatives can't get with the program and believe in your social policies and ideas because they don't go to college and don't listen to the news sources you listen to - that's just the most biased, narrowminded, (gasp! bigoted!) POV I can imagine about people who happen to not agree with you.

Lots of educated people don't agree with you either.  I'd say the majority of the world's population is probably "bigoted" if by "bigoted" you mean resistant to same-sex unions, the social mixing of races or castes, and encouraging women into traditionally male roles (much less the even more progressive stuff you seemingly have to accept now on the left to avoid being called a bigot).  Certainly the majority of the world's population who have ever lived would be considered bigots, right?  And yet they built this society, modern science, philosophy, religious institutions, western literature and civilization - and were obviously not idiots who just didn't listen to enough NPR.

[HomeAgain]

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

Finally, in re: the OP, which is why I finally clicked on this thread in the first place, if the idea is that your ignorant relatives can't get with the program and believe in your social policies and ideas because they don't go to college and don't listen to the news sources you listen to - that's just the most biased, narrowminded, (gasp! bigoted!) POV I can imagine about people who happen to not agree with you.

Lots of educated people don't agree with you either.  I'd say the majority of the world's population is probably "bigoted" if by "bigoted" you mean resistant to same-sex unions, the social mixing of races or castes, and encouraging women into traditionally male roles (much less the even more progressive stuff you seemingly have to accept now on the left to avoid being called a bigot).  Certainly the majority of the world's population who have ever lived would be considered bigots, right?  And yet they built this society, modern science, philosophy, religious institutions, western literature and civilization - and were obviously not idiots who just didn't listen to enough NPR.

I went back and reread the OP.

I find it a stretch to go from having a conversation about people who insulate themselves from various ideas to reading into it that people who don't go to college and listen to the right news are ignorant/saying that people insulate themselves is a bigoted point of view. 

The rest of your response makes no sense, either, especially as we find more and more evidence of women and marginalized people who made significant contributions to societies only to be erased, have their research stolen, or an entire civilization's advancements being attributed to a more acceptable one's (like ignoring Muslim scientists and mathematicians until a westerner came up with the same conclusion).

[merry gardens]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:42 AM, Quill said:

Yes, “Betty” has too much time on her hands and spends too much time on incendiary media that heightens her sense of injustice. 

Quote

What I wonder is how “we” can give others space to grow towards tolerance in the world if the people we would like to influence are not seeking such knowledge and are not in a setting (like my college class) where it is likely to be encounteed. If you add in the probability that “Uncle Ted” listens to a couple limited news stations and radio shows which do not help him grow in toleremce, and he hangs out with his poker buddies who all hold similar beliefs, you have a recipe for stunted growth at least. It is one thing I do not know how to influence. I have numerous “Uncle Ted” kinds of people in my life and I don’t know how to help them see things a different way. 

 

Since you asked how we change bigotry on an individual level and hope to make a world more tolerant:

Tolerate "Uncle Ted". Tolerate "Betty". Tolerate their views. Tolerate freedom of the press, which results in news and information that may not match your worldview. 

On an individual level, the only person you can really change is yourself. So change. Be more tolerant.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, moonflower said:

Finally, in re: the OP, which is why I finally clicked on this thread in the first place, if the idea is that your ignorant relatives can't get with the program and believe in your social policies and ideas because they don't go to college and don't listen to the news sources you listen to - that's just the most biased, narrowminded, (gasp! bigoted!) POV I can imagine about people who happen to not agree with you.

Lots of educated people don't agree with you either.  I'd say the majority of the world's population is probably "bigoted" if by "bigoted" you mean resistant to same-sex unions, the social mixing of races or castes, and encouraging women into traditionally male roles (much less the even more progressive stuff you seemingly have to accept now on the left to avoid being called a bigot).  Certainly the majority of the world's population who have ever lived would be considered bigots, right?  And yet they built this society, modern science, philosophy, religious institutions, western literature and civilization - and were obviously not idiots who just didn't listen to enough NPR.

You are taking a leap too far from what I was asking.. One time, this was a statement made at a family gathering, “Oh, we pulled our daughter out of that school because - not that I’m racist - but that school is like 40% black now and we are afraid she’s going to come home with Tyrone.” Do you think I should aspire to concur with this thinking? Or would it be nice if I could help people who are raising my niece in this way examine what would be so terrible about that? 

I would say, yes, the majority of the world population throughout history and including today are resistant to all of those things or at least some of them. Yet I believe we are all better off as we move towards greater acceptance and love for one another. Not worse! 

Are you saying, “The light-skinned European males who created so many aspects of society which I appreciate did a fine job, so why mess that up by listening to all the non-white men and women who didn’t have a role?” 

Also, I don’t listen to NPR. ? I have only an Associates degree from college, which I obtained only recently in life. I’m not looking down from any liberal ivory towers at the great mass of blue collar country boys; I live amongst the blue collar country boys. But my hope and belief is that even people who grew up with casual or even abject racism can change. I would be happy to help that along rather than just allow it to fester. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, merry gardens said:

 

Since you asked how we change bigotry on an individual level and hope to make a world more tolerant:

Tolerate "Uncle Ted". Tolerate "Betty". Tolerate their views. Tolerate freedom of the press, which results in news and information that may not match your worldview. 

On an individual level, the only person you can really change is yourself. So change. Be more tolerant.

See my statement above about pulling a kid out of a school. 

I already tolerate Uncle Ted. I already tolerate Betty. It is literally what I’m asking: how to gently raise the standard of what is acceptable. 

My pastor used to say, “Jesus will meet you where you’re at, but he doesn’t want you to stay there.” That is the model. 

[Scarlett]

5 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

This makes no sense to me.  I believe in staying home with the kids too, I do, but I don't see how you can tell someone they should have given up paid employment so they could get free things from the government.  If SKL's dad's income could have supported them alone, then I can see suggesting her mom stay home.  But otherwise you're saying she should have purposefully taken money from someone else.  I dunno.

Purposefully take money? The government under which we live has requirements for many many benefits. Tax breaks and incentives and even loopholes of all kind.  Earned income credit being one that many people take legal advantage of.  Free or reduced lunches, free or reduced medical or healt insurance,  and really the list goes on.  So if a person or a family meets  those requirements for whatever reason or circumstance they are in AND making use of such provisions benefits helpless children who need basic life necessities like food, clothing, shelter, health care and just general adult care then I don’t understand how anyone can think it wrong to accept such help.  A mother being at home to care for her children, while a father works are examples of two people benefiting society.  

[merry gardens]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

See my statement above about pulling a kid out of a school. 

I already tolerate Uncle Ted. I already tolerate Betty. It is literally what I’m asking: how to gently raise the standard of what is acceptable. 

My pastor used to say, “Jesus will meet you where you’re at, but he doesn’t want you to stay there.” That is the model. 

 

1 hour ago, Quill said:

 One time, this was a statement made at a family gathering, “Oh, we pulled our daughter out of that school because - not that I’m racist - but that school is like 40% black now and we are afraid she’s going to come home with Tyrone.” Do you think I should aspire to concur with this thinking? Or would it be nice if I could help people who are raising my niece in this way examine what would be so terrible about that? 

The problem with "tolerance" is that some things are intolerable. You want to change the standard of what's tolerated. 

Relatives listening to different news channels and radio programs isn't the problem, but you mentioned that several times on this thread. Separate one opinion from another. Don't assume that your other relatives agreed with this person even if they listen to the same sources of news and information. Perhaps some also found the comment awkward and also wonder how to endure their family get-togethers.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, merry gardens said:

 

The problem with "tolerance" is that some things are intolerable. You want to change the standard of what's tolerated. 

Relatives listening to different news channels and radio programs isn't the problem, but you mentioned that several times on this thread. Separate one opinion from another. Don't assume that your other relatives agreed with this person even if they listen to the same sources of news and information. Perhaps some also found the comment awkward and also wonder how to endure their family get-togethers.

 

Uh, yes it is. It IS a part of the problem. Certain TV and radio shows go explicitly to an effort to marginalize non-white people. There is one radio personality who goes on soliloquies about “American Exceptionalism.” Certain radio or TV shows constantly report that they alone are the “true” news. It is a problem when anyone worships one TV show or one radio show and turns off his or her critical thinking. Bad things happen in society when people do that. 

I’m also not talking about assumptions. I’m going on evidence directly from their own mouths (or fingers, in the case of what they post on SM sites.) 

It is true that nobody else spoke up about the pull-out-of-the-black-school comments, but I don’t think a single person who heard it felt otherwise. It was like I was Skeeter in The Help listening to the koffeeklatch leader decry sharing a toilet with the black maids. 

[Bluegoat]

22 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying here about the artilce; the only reason I posted it was because it focused on the overweighted emphasis on 'bad' white women as compared to 'bad' white men. That was actually the point, rather than 'why' white women vote Republican. They vote that way because they think it's the best use of their vote, obviously.

 

If I recall correctly, that article was published a day or some after they had a different article talking about why white women voted for Trump.  I think it's fair to say it was meant to be read as something of a response to that.

I found them both to be kind of annoying, and a little strange - as if there is this assumption people should always be voting in their own interest or that is how people always vote.  I think the first article claimed the white women were voting in their interest as white instead of their interest as women - because obviously women "know" that certain ideas are in their interest.  There didn't seem to be any sense that there might be certain ideas that the women thought were important in themselves, that either attracted them from Trump or away from Clinton.

[G5052]

Going back to the OP, I think you have to go into situations like that with good personal boundaries and a plan. Yes, people are going to say nasty stuff, but you have to pick your battles. Maybe you choose to limit your contact to just a short period of time.

I have a relative who is drastically different than me politically, but when it gets hot, I say something like this, "I love you too much to let this divide us. I appreciate your passion and concern, but let's change the subject." Thankfully she respects that.

I'm fully expecting a challenge on some of my choices this holiday season, but I know what I'm going to say. The worse that can happen is that they will continue to look down on me. Is that really something I need to stress about? They already think very little of me, so what is new? If I go home and things are the same, it's OK.