Been away from the blog landscape for quite a while - computer misbehaviour, uni work and a lack of inspiration. There are, however, some things that I want to take note of.

Firstly, Liberal Serving and Jill @ Feministe point out how the American …

Robert said:

Ginmar said:
I’d be afraid of saying something shitty and hurting somebody’s feelings, not with what I could get away with. All this crap about taking offense sounds like you’re trying to manage to get away with shit.

Ginmar, I believe that Aegis agrees with your first phrase - albeit, I imagine he disagrees with the “because you’re a racist fuck” subtext of the rest.

Correct. And I don’t understand how someone would be trying to get away with shit by censoring their own speech.

Robert said:
That you have to ascribe this to wanting to get away with something says more about you than it does about the person trying to be respectful.

Speaking of respect, that lets me put my finger on a strange contradiction: Whites and males are often encouraged to show “respect” and “tolerance” for minorities and women, yet according to several posters in this thread, being worried about what one says to minorities is somehow a hallmark of racism. Yet these views seem to contradict each other.

If we are going to hammer tolerance into people, then we shouldn’t be surprised if all that consciousness-raising makes them very self-conscious, at least for a while. (And note: the way “tolerance” is currently advocated is extremely vague, and basically forces non-minorities to take responsibility for any unintended interpretations of their words.) Maybe whites and males should just have to deal with their resulting self-consciousness. So why demonize them for saying that they have to watch their words around minorities, or that they feel like they are walking on eggshells around women? Sure, maybe they know that they are racist and sexist and are trying to hide it, but maybe they are simply self-conscious and confused? Isn’t the very purpose of “raising consciousness” to get people to be aware of the social consequences of what they say? If so, it’s pretty bizarre to damn them as racists or sexists for trying to do exactly what they have been told they are supposed to do.

I’m having trouble reconciling the “avoid saying anything that could be loosely interpreted as intolerant or sexist to a minority or a woman” position with the “if you complain about having to watch your speech around minorities/women, it means you don’t know how to act around minorities/women, or that you stereotype minorities/women as hypersensitive, or that you are hiding racist/sexist views, which all mean that you are racist/sexist” position. You (not you, Robert, but a general “you”) can’t have it both ways. Either censoring yourself is racist/sexist, or self-censoring is necessary to avoid racism/sexism, but not both at the same time.

Ginmar, I believe that Aegis agrees with your first phrase - albeit, I imagine he disagrees with the “because you’re a racist fuck” subtext of the rest.

If you are afraid of saying something shitty and hurting somebody’s feelings, AND you are aware that you don’t have a good grasp on what somebody else is going to consider shitty, then a prudent person is often going to clam up rather than run the risk.

That you have to ascribe this to wanting to get away with something says more about you than it does about the person trying to be respectful.

BritGirlSF said:
The only reason I can imagine for someone feeling that way is that maybe they commonly find themselves thinking offensive things and are afraid that they might pop out in a sudden attack of Tourettes.

Perhaps there are other explanations that don’t assume the guilt of such a person? Someone might be extra careful what they say around women/minorities, because s/he isn’t sure exactly what statements will be considered offensive? The vagueness and overbroadness of many harassment policies doesn’t help: not only is it unclear what people will take offense at, but it is often unclear on what you can be punished for. In the case of race, maybe someone doesn’t have much experience interacting with minorities of a certain race, honestly doesn’t understand what they will be offended at, and opts for silence. Such ignorance towards people of a different background is unfortunate, but it isn’t necessarily the fault of the person involved, nor does it mean that he or she is racist for exercising caution.

Jeff said:
The whole “I’m afraid to say things around women or people of color” thing is ridiculous. It just goes back to the idea that the speaker’s good intentions are somehow more important than the reaction of his or her audience.

Seems like the other way around to me. If such a person self-censors because of fear of harassment, they may think “the impact of my statements on my audience is more important that whatever good intentions I may have.”

mythago said:
No, it’s honest. The speaker is admitting they have no idea of how to address women or people of color as equals, and can’t distinguish inappropriate conversations with appropriate ones; either they believe that women or people of color require a whole different set of conversational topics and behaviors, or their natural discourse is so sexist/racist that the only alternative is silence.

But “inappropriate” according to what standards? I know what my standards of appropriateness and offensiveness are. I can’t always predict what other people are going to find offensive, because I can’t read minds. Hence, I can understand someone being cautious about raising certain topics with groups of people that may take offense, although he or she may not believe those topics to be inherently offensive. Also, there are topics, or ways of approaching topics, that people from historically oppressed groups may find more offensive than people from different backgrounds would. It’s obviously a stereotype that all women and minorities are going to be hypersensitive. Yet females and minorities are probably more likely to make and succeed with harassment charges than people who aren’t in those “protected categories.” And abuse of such charges exists, and even without them, inordinate social censure can happen for statements that offend the wrong people (e.g. Larry Summers, though some probably won’t agree with my example).

How should someone respond to the above double-bind? Should they censor themselves out of fear of certain groups of people taking offense, and risk unfairly stereotyping those people as hypersensitive? Or should they barrel ahead, and risk offending people with standards of offensiveness that they fail to predict? I don’t know the answers to these questions. Consequently, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that those who are cautious about saying certain things in the company of women/minorities are automatically sexist or racist.

No, it’s honest. The speaker is admitting they have no idea of how to address women or people of color as equals, and can’t distinguish inappropriate conversations with appropriate ones; either they believe that women or people of color require a whole different set of conversational topics and behaviors, or their natural discourse is so sexist/racist that the only alternative is silence.

many whites are careful about their words choices around minorities, especially blacks.

Yeah, I really hate that !! I mean, it’s getting to the point where you can’t even proclaim Bringing Down The House to be the greatest cinematic masterpiece of the 21st century without those humorless Black people getting all grumpy and stuff ! I mean, what’s their problem, anyway ?

[rolleyes]

…not to mention any of the data about the men deemed secure (one has to wonder just what criteria a man must meet in order to be “secure” in his masculinity), which is odd since it is just as important to results of the study.

It seems very doubtful to me, from this statement, that you understood the description of the study.

they can get along fine with gays until they are poked and prodded about not liking homosexuality to the point that they react in a very biased way.

Pfft. I have always supported gay marriage - however when I was more insecure and pestered about it (you must be gay because you support it!)
I generally felt a need to mask it by saying things like “Well, gays disgust me but I still would allow them to marry”. Luckily I’ve matured since, and don’t need to say silly stuff like that. Depends on the person, in other words, but I’d bet my case is more common than the “You hate gays/ No I don’t!/ Just admit it! /Okay, I hate them!” -exchange.

likewise, men tend to be more protection-oriented than women, and therefore more likely to support wars when necessary than women.

…

this is what i mean by the study only validating stereotypes.

Anyone see the irony here?

I’m not sure how this is a criticism of the study. Of its methodologies, yes, but you seem to completely agree with the conclusion. If I’m reading this correctly, you’re suggesting that these men could have been made to feel insecure from any number of ways, instead of just being told that they were feminine. And, I guess, that their insecurities about other things led them to answer in the way that they did? But that still suggests that men are more likely to support the war, buy SUVs, and be against same-sex marriage when they are insecure. Right?

not necessarily. it depends on how the questions are asked. for instance, if a man was badgered about his dislike of homosexuality until the point he became insecure, and then asked if he supported gay marriage, how do we know that he would not have otherwise had no problem with supporting gay marriage? i’ve seen this done in school with conservative students. they can get along fine with gays until they are poked and prodded about not liking homosexuality to the point that they react in a very biased way.

likewise, men tend to be more protection-oriented than women, and therefore more likely to support wars when necessary than women. half this country doesn’t support the war in iraq. are we to then assume that the men who support this war are insecure about their masculinity? it couldn’t possibly have something to do with the way the war has been presented to them? given the scare tactics used, it is not at all surprising that many people would support this war. and given that men are socialized as protectors, it is only logical that more men than women would support a war if it is seen as a protective measure.

this is what i mean by the study only validating stereotypes. we see men as essentially aggressive, over-compensating wimps, and when presented with a study that “proves” what we believe, we accept that it is true without ever questioning it.

for instance, SUVs don’t appear to be the pinnacle of masculine cars. trucks are. they have been for decades. however, SUVs are popular cars. so one has to wonder if the option of trucks were placed as a choice of vehicle, assuming that the subjects had to make a choice. likewise, one must wonder what percentage of “secure” men chose SUVs as well. if it is also a high percentage, then the subjects would just be choosing what car they see during most commercial breaks, i.e. what they are most exposed to. the article makes no mention of this.

based purely on what is stated in the article, this study did not take into account male socialization, which would explain attitudes about war and fears about homosexuality, both of which are propagated by just as many women as men. it did not factor in popularity of items or choices. it did not factor in pre-existing non-gender identity insecurities or social norms. and it appears that it did not factor in whether the very proposing of the questions themselves would in fact create the insecurities, not to mention any of the data about the men deemed secure (one has to wonder just what criteria a man must meet in order to be “secure” in his masculinity), which is odd since it is just as important to results of the study.

Don’t forget “therapy for terrorists.”

Aegis said:
I would definitely agree that femininity is not considered “powerful,” because powerfulness is usually associated with masculinity. I think there are also some areas where “feminine” values are seen as superior, such as in “communication,” intimacy, and loving. Part of this comes from the stereotype of females as more nurturing.

I agree that females are considered superior to males as to nurturing ability, and are thought to be more communicative and intimate. However, I don’t think that those values in and of themselves are thought to better by society, at least outside of mothers. If men are perceived to be more nurturing, they’re called feminine and it’s certainly not a compliment. Just look at some of the right-wing attacks on Clinton for saying the felt our pain. They took that as a feminine thing to say and criticized him harshly for it.

jaketk said:
as for the subject of the thread, until i can read exactly how this study was conducted, what questions were asked, what choices were made available, and most important if the subjects’ insecurities were studied to determine what exactly they stemmed from, i won’t give it much credit. generalized studies such as these have little value as they simply reinforce stereotypes, generally negative ones, and rarely factor in elements outside of the range of the study. for instance, how do we know these men were not made to feel insecure by the manner of the questioning? how do we know that they were not insecure about themselves in general to begin with, and that the researchers merely took that to mean they were insecure about their masculinity? such questions typically aren’t asked as the studies often “prove” what people already believe.

I’m not sure how this is a criticism of the study. Of its methodologies, yes, but you seem to completely agree with the conclusion. If I’m reading this correctly, you’re suggesting that these men could have been made to feel insecure from any number of ways, instead of just being told that they were feminine. And, I guess, that their insecurities about other things led them to answer in the way that they did? But that still suggests that men are more likely to support the war, buy SUVs, and be against same-sex marriage when they are insecure. Right?

mythago said: The idea that a mere polite comment will get you a sexual harassment lawsuit is ludicrous. You don’t see people worrying that they will be punished for well-meant remarks that are wrongly taken as racial harassment, or religious discrimination, yet there’s this weird perception that women are all eager to immerse themselves in the joy that is a lawsuit.

actually, it isn’t all that uncommon for people to be concerned about what they say. perhaps in your case, by being from a protected group, you have little to fear if you make a well-meant comment or even a flat-out sexist or racist comment. but many people do, especially if they aren’t in a friendly setting. many whites are careful about their words choices around minorities, especially blacks. as for men and comments about women, perhaps you should consider this: if many men think that their well-meant comments will be perceived as sexist, perhaps that is because it is actually the case. perceptions are based not only on preconceived notions, but on what is placed in front of you. and following the series of sexual harrassment lawsuits at the beginning of the 90s, it is much safer for a man, or for whites, to simply avoid making comments than risk being fired over something trivial.

as for the subject of the thread, until i can read exactly how this study was conducted, what questions were asked, what choices were made available, and most important if the subjects’ insecurities were studied to determine what exactly they stemmed from, i won’t give it much credit. generalized studies such as these have little value as they simply reinforce stereotypes, generally negative ones, and rarely factor in elements outside of the range of the study. for instance, how do we know these men were not made to feel insecure by the manner of the questioning? how do we know that they were not insecure about themselves in general to begin with, and that the researchers merely took that to mean they were insecure about their masculinity? such questions typically aren’t asked as the studies often “prove” what people already believe.