The term “microaggression” might be appropriately applied in many spheres. How about to the manner in which women put one another down with seemingly nice comments, such as “That extra weight looks really good on you”? And if you’re looking for one of the most disabling of microaggressions, the use of the term “privilege” to describe the positions earned by brilliant and hard-working white men is a fantastic example of the ultimate put-down.
But the term is never used to describe what two white women might say to one another, or what women say about men. It’s only used to describe aggression by the so-called “privileged” against the so-called “oppressed.” So a t-shirt that says “make me a sandwich” is a “misogynistic microaggression,” whereas a feminist professor’s use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” in her lectures is not. Personally, I’d rather deal with a joke t-shirt than a theory supported by my professor and accepted by elite society generally that says my sex has a genetic disposition to violence and domination.
This is the ultimate hypocrisy of “microaggression.” It claims to be about preventing subtle sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination, but the insistence that only certain groups of people can be affected exposes it for the blatant power play that it is.
Doesn't applying the concept only to certain groups suggest the victims of micro aggressions are overly delicate flowers that can't handle basic language while the other group obviously can.
The idea seems both racist and sexist in its formation.
The idea seems both racist and sexist in its formation.
No, it doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Which is presumably why even questioning the premise of “microaggressions” is itself now deemed a “microaggression.” But despite these shortcomings, the terms “privilege” and “microaggression” are the latest rhetorical tools of the passive-aggressive. By which I mean, people who are instinctively dishonest.
Microaggression exists, it's a staple of classroom bullying for example. But it's a feature that it is deniable and ambiguous. Taking the moral high ground, appeals to authority is part of the trap, where it exists, and just plain dumb where it doesn't.
the terms “privilege” and “microaggression” are the latest rhetorical tools of the passive-aggressive. By which I mean, people who are instinctively dishonest.
Well, it’s one thing to have a discussion in which you’re being aggressed openly – at least you know what you’re dealing with and others may see what’s happening. But these attempts to induce pretentious guilt - and to dominate someone by making them dishonest, unrealistic, self-hating and absurd – are no less ill-intended and, if successful, more damaging. And if the victim is on campus, this passive-aggression is often institutionalised and carries the weight of consensus and authority. Despite the pious drag, it’s a kind of psychological malevolence.
Well, if you take the rhetoric and behaviour of “social justice” enthusiasts at face value and assume that their motives are as pious and benign as they claim, there’s typically a dissonance. The blather seems question-begging and logically inconsistent, often wildly so, and at odds with their preferred tactics and behaviour, and is therefore quite baffling. But if you entertain the possibility of less edifying motives, it starts to make a perverse kind of sense. Again, “diversity” guru Jane Elliott is a textbook example. If you wanted to exalt yourself while exerting power over other people, because you enjoy it, “social justice” blather would be a pretty good cover.
She also suggested that students were dropping out… not because they were victims of racism or felt threatened on campus, but because of their low grades.
I’ve replaced them two or three times over the years. Looks like I’ll have to try to find another upload. The videos I embedded were from one of Elliott’s own workshop documentaries, originally intended as promotional / educational materials to sell the idea of her “diversity training” to a wider audience. Which, given Elliott’s eye-widening ignorance and obvious mental health issues, is almost surreal.
From the video:
There’s more of course.
Posted by: David | March 03, 2016 at 17:25
I assume Janet (I call her by her first name because patriarchy) will soon be unemployed.
Posted by: Custard Cream | March 03, 2016 at 17:45
Even though her name's Janice !
Posted by: Custard Cream | March 03, 2016 at 17:47
@Custard Cream
She'll be 'Scrutoned'
Posted by: Dr Cromarty | March 03, 2016 at 18:00
The nail that stands up is hammered down.
Posted by: mojo | March 03, 2016 at 19:53
Doesn't applying the concept only to certain groups suggest the victims of micro aggressions are overly delicate flowers that can't handle basic language while the other group obviously can.
The idea seems both racist and sexist in its formation.
Posted by: Rjschwarz | March 03, 2016 at 20:29
The idea seems both racist and sexist in its formation.
No, it doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Which is presumably why even questioning the premise of “microaggressions” is itself now deemed a “microaggression.” But despite these shortcomings, the terms “privilege” and “microaggression” are the latest rhetorical tools of the passive-aggressive. By which I mean, people who are instinctively dishonest.
Posted by: David | March 03, 2016 at 20:42
Rjschwarz,
"Microagression" is how unattractive mediocrities found a way to be the princess in the "Princess and the Pea" fable. Bless their hearts.
Posted by: Spiny Norman | March 04, 2016 at 03:07
Microaggression exists, it's a staple of classroom bullying for example. But it's a feature that it is deniable and ambiguous. Taking the moral high ground, appeals to authority is part of the trap, where it exists, and just plain dumb where it doesn't.
Posted by: NielsR | March 04, 2016 at 08:07
the terms “privilege” and “microaggression” are the latest rhetorical tools of the passive-aggressive. By which I mean, people who are instinctively dishonest.
That. :¬D
Posted by: Bev | March 04, 2016 at 15:02
That. :¬D
Well, it’s one thing to have a discussion in which you’re being aggressed openly – at least you know what you’re dealing with and others may see what’s happening. But these attempts to induce pretentious guilt - and to dominate someone by making them dishonest, unrealistic, self-hating and absurd – are no less ill-intended and, if successful, more damaging. And if the victim is on campus, this passive-aggression is often institutionalised and carries the weight of consensus and authority. Despite the pious drag, it’s a kind of psychological malevolence.
Posted by: David | March 04, 2016 at 15:22
""Microagression" is how unattractive mediocrities found a way to be the princess in the "Princess and the Pea" fable."
But they are the pea.
Posted by: I sneeze in threes | March 04, 2016 at 19:14
A professor’s attempt to check her “white privilege” goes horribly wrong. Naturally, a purge ensues.
Posted by: David | March 05, 2016 at 08:03
A professor’s attempt to check her “white privilege” goes horribly wrong.
"what they want is to exercise unaccountable power for the thrill of it."
That.
Posted by: Rob | March 05, 2016 at 08:38
That.
Well, if you take the rhetoric and behaviour of “social justice” enthusiasts at face value and assume that their motives are as pious and benign as they claim, there’s typically a dissonance. The blather seems question-begging and logically inconsistent, often wildly so, and at odds with their preferred tactics and behaviour, and is therefore quite baffling. But if you entertain the possibility of less edifying motives, it starts to make a perverse kind of sense. Again, “diversity” guru Jane Elliott is a textbook example. If you wanted to exalt yourself while exerting power over other people, because you enjoy it, “social justice” blather would be a pretty good cover.
Posted by: David | March 05, 2016 at 09:02
She also suggested that students were dropping out… not because they were victims of racism or felt threatened on campus, but because of their low grades.
HATE CRIME!
Posted by: Joan | March 05, 2016 at 09:52
I noticed all the Jane Elliot videos are gone.
Posted by: Dom | March 05, 2016 at 21:09
I noticed all the Jane Elliot videos are gone.
I’ve replaced them two or three times over the years. Looks like I’ll have to try to find another upload. The videos I embedded were from one of Elliott’s own workshop documentaries, originally intended as promotional / educational materials to sell the idea of her “diversity training” to a wider audience. Which, given Elliott’s eye-widening ignorance and obvious mental health issues, is almost surreal.
Posted by: David | March 05, 2016 at 21:51
JF is great, a lion in kitten clothing.
Posted by: Si | March 06, 2016 at 05:56
George Orwell wasn't half a clever bastard wasn't he?
Posted by: Rainer | March 10, 2016 at 18:54