Here is an underrated track from ’07: Nature’s Phone (Remix), by Toronto-born Palestinian Canadian rapper Arabesque featuring Melanie Durrant.
This song is funny, because men appear to get unnerved in exactly this way when we talk about them.
I wish I had the lyrics to the rap at the end.
Some individuals believe that the terminology used to discuss racism beyond personal experiences is unnecessarily pedantic and elitist. There are at least two plausible explanations of the reasoning behind this sentiment. One possibility is that the individual in question does not understand the systemic problem of racism, and believes that racism is something that is done by only crazed individuals. This first possibility will be discussed in this post.
An individual who thinks that racism is merely individual acts of hatred by mentally-ill white individuals does not understand that racism is systemic and pervasive. Racism is not exclusive to the political right and political conservatives, and hatred (explicit or implicit) against a racial group x is not necessary for holding racist beliefs about racial group x. Political liberals and even the political left may harbour racist beliefs that are based on misconceptions* about others’ lack of competence rather than hatred. Even people of colour of any political orientation may be racist against their own racial group and other racialized groups because they have internalized the racist belief system that permeates our culture.
If an individual does not understand the systemic problem of racism and believes that racism is about random acts of hatred committed by crazed white individuals, then it is reasonable to infer that she also thinks that terms like ‘systemic racism’, ‘internalized racism’, ‘racialized’, ‘microaggression’, and ‘microinsults’ have nothing to do with reality and are academic posturing. If she does not directly experience systemic racism, internalized racism, racialization, microaggression, and microinsults, then she would probably believe that these are merely theoretical constructs invented by academics in ivory towers. If this individual believes that to use such terms is to complicate things, then she likely has a very simplistic and superficial understanding of how racism works. If an individual does not experience microinsults herself and thinks that the idea of ‘microinsults’ is meaningless academese, then she is merely projecting her own detachment and opaqueness with respect to racism on to the term itself.
That something is ‘complex’ or ‘elusive’ to white people does not mean that it is universally complex and elusive to all humans. There can exist things that are experienced at a very basic level of perception by one group of people, yet not be recognized by another group due to the other’s lack of experience or lack of conceptual background. For example, East Asian cultures generally perceive umami or xiānwèi as a basic taste, but most Westerners would have to expend cognitive effort to taste it as ‘umami’. Moreover, the type of Westerners who would use the word ‘umami’ tend to be more educated than the general population, but this does not indicate that the concept of ‘umami’ itself is elitist and academic.
Ultimately, if an individual feels that terms like ‘systemic racism’, ‘internalized racism’, ‘racialized’, ‘microaggression’, and ‘microinsults’ have empty referents, it is a manifestation of her aloofness, not the academic’s.
* White liberals and white leftists may travel to ‘Africa’ or another geographical region and expect that they can help non-whites, assuming that the problem is lack of ingenuity on the part of non-whites. Often, these self-styled ‘philanthropists’ assume that they are competent enough to solve other people’s problems without researching the situation or without having any working experience in such projects. They assume that poverty in developing countries is about lack of resources and ignore Western complicity, because they would like to maintain their self-perception as white saviours.
When women suggest indirectly to stop or slow down sexual intimacy, men interpret these messages as requests to escalate sexual intimacy. This is due to men’s faulty introspection, according to a University of California study.
If she says, “It’s getting late,” he interprets this to mean “Let’s speed things up,” because that is what he would mean if he said it. (This research “does not address rape or other situations in which a man indeed understands ‘no’ but ignores it,” according to the news release.)
In one study, Motley gave 30 female and 60 male UC Davis undergraduates a multiple-choice questionnaire that asked about 16 common “female resistance messages.” The messages ranged from very direct — “Let’s stop this” — to very indirect — “I’m seeing someone else.” Four potential interpretations were listed for each message; only one was “stop.”
For “I’m seeing someone else,” for example, the following four interpretations were listed:
a) You want to go further but you want him to know that it doesn’t mean that you’re committed to him;
b) You want to go further but you want him to be discreet, so that the other guy doesn’t find out;
c) You want to go further but you want him to realize, in case you end up “going together,” that you may do this with someone else while you’re seeing him;
d) You don’t want to go further.
The women in the study were asked to recall a time when they used one of the messages, and to choose the answer that best matched what they meant when they said it. Half of the men were asked to recall a time when they were with a woman who communicated each message, and to choose the interpretation that best matched what they thought the woman meant when she said it. The other 30 men were instructed to choose the interpretation that best matched what they would mean if they were to communicate the messages.
By the way, for the average woman, her intended meaning is d) You don’t want to go further.
The questionnaire study showed that men were accurate at interpreting direct resistance messages like “Let’s stop this.” But they were as apt to interpret “Let’s be friends” to mean “keep going” as to mean “stop.” And few of them would mean “stop” if they were to deliver any of the indirect messages themselves.
This is amusing in a horrible way. What is fascinating about this is that there are multiple interpretations of “I’m seeing someone else,” and “Let’s be friends,” and that the male-centric interpretations assume that wanting casual sex and cheating is more likely that wanting to stop/slow down sexual intimacy.
In related studies, Motley has also shown that most women use indirect messages out of concern that men will be offended or angered by direct messages — but that most men actually accept direct resistance messages easily and without negative reactions.
This is even more intriguing. It is probably the case that women experience street harassment and find that rejecting sexual advances often results in anger/offense and being called a “bitch,” or in extreme cases, results in threats of death or rape. These studies that show men accept direct resistance messages “easily and without negative reactions” should be investigated for more details.
Motley’s book also offers practical recommendations for dealing with this type of miscommunication:
- Men need to be aware of the many ways that women may say “stop” without using the word “stop.”
- When a man asks himself during intimacy, “Why did she say that?” he should not try to answer the question by imagining what he would mean if he said the same thing.
- When in doubt, ask. “So it’s getting late; does that mean we should stop?”
- Women should use direct messages.
- A woman who cannot be direct should at least work a direct message into the indirect one: “It’s getting late, so I’d like to stop.”
Women should definitely use direct messages, as should men and genderqueer people. Both direct and indirect communication are important skills that must be cultivated, but explicit statements can be understood by a wider range of people and are less culturally dependent.
References:
It is often the case that differences in political views are not just different opinions on isolated issues, but the underlying assumptions and worldviews are very different.
Beginning with the assumption that all Muslims are participants in a global conspiracy to take over the Western world, Mark Stenyn had argued in a Maclean’s article that the alleged plan will succeed because Muslims’ average birth rate is higher than the average birth rate of non-Muslim Caucasians. Four Osgoode law students called his article “flagrantly islamophobic” and filed a human rights complaint against Maclean’s for not publishing a counter article from their perspective.
Attempting to ridicule the activities of Canadian human rights commissions, Mark Steyn refers to a human rights complaint against a plastic surgeon who refused to perform labiaplasty on transwomen. The article he cites by Margaret Wente includes disparaging descriptions of transwomen’s bodies:
During the lunch break, I had a sandwich with Michelle. Her gestures were feminine. But up close, she looked more like a guy than a girl.
She had a man’s big hands, big teeth, broad-bridged nose, and coarse facial skin.
This, of course, is irrelevant to the case, but serves to demonize and dehumanize the complainants. In her introduction of Michelle, Wente ridicules Michelle’s height and voice, and doubts her female identity because she had fathered children:
First up on the witness stand was Michelle Boyce, a statuesque 38-year-old with a lush cascade of curly black hair and the breaking voice of an adolescent male. She described herself as intersex – someone who’d been born with both ovaries and a penis. Although raised male, she said she’d always thought of herself as a woman (despite the fact that in her 20s, she had married and fathered two children in the customary way).
Why does the fact that Michelle Boyce fathered children cast doubt on the claim that she had always thought of herself as a woman? It is quite probable that Boyce married and fathered children because she was raised as a male and was in the closet at the time due to tremendous social pressure. It is also possible that Boyce is a lesbian or bisexual. However, these possibilities do not seem to cross Wente’s mind, and this fact is introduced as if it was a self-explanatory contradiction to Boyce’s professed gender identity. There is no contradiction in Boyce’s narrative, but Wente sees contradiction due to her ignorance and false assumptions.
Other assumptions in Wente’s article include the assumption that labiaplasty is a frivolous operation for vanity, that discrimination against transwomen with respect to labiaplasty is not ‘real’ or ‘important’ discrimination, and that the lawsuit is self-evidently absurd.
Mark Steyn quotes Wente:
Well, he was rude. He said hurtful things and hurt her feelings. The hearing has now adjourned for a few weeks, in hopes that further mediation may find a way to soothe them.
Over lunch, Michelle told me that the demeaning treatment by Dr. Stubbs “had a profound effect on the rest of my life.” After that, she became a full-time activist. Today she has a government-funded job investigating the health status of the transsexual population.
and he comes to the conclusion that Boyce got the government job because her “feelings were hurt” as a transsexual:
My feelings were hurt by being denounced as a “flagrant Islamophobe”, but I’m unlikely to get a government job out of it.
It is quite possible that Boyce got the government job because she is the most qualified person for the job, but Steyn apparently cannot see that possibility. Steyn also appears to confuse the right to labiaplasty with compulsory labiaplasty:
On the other hand, I’ll be grateful if the commission doesn’t order me a compulsory labiaplasty.
Human rights commissions investigate human rights complaints. Steyn does not think that the Osgoode law students’ complaints deserve investigation, and attempts to discredit human rights commissions by bringing up a human rights complaint regarding discrimination in transwomen’s access to labiaplasty. However, in doing so, he reveals his prejudice against transgender people and an underlying hostility towards minority groups and their viewpoints.
Restructure! 